Softpanorama

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

Noble Lie

News Leo Straus as the godfather of neocons Recommended Links Recommended Papers Machiavellism John Dilulio letter
The ability and willingness to employ savage methods Deception as an art form History of American False Flag Operations Neocons Credibility Scam Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA Neoconservatism
Noble Lie Leo Strauss and the Neocons False Flag Operations The use of wedge issues as the tool to obtain and hold power. Hillary "Warmonger" Clinton Jeb Bush
A grand old cult The History of Media-Military-Industrial Complex Concept Neo-theocratic Movements Lysenkoism Culture War American Exceptionalism
Guardian paper Washington Post paper by Mike Allen LA Times Paper by Neal Gabler     Etc

"To successfully uncover the lies of someone you first must know how to lie yourself. Now, some people just don't know how to lie because they've never been around someone who was good at it. I'm going to give you some pointers — never ever exaggerate within the lie. Details are key and remembering those details is what will keep the lie alive."

"One of the ways that deal with co-workers who I think have lied to me is to ask them the most obvious question: 'Did you lie to me when…?'"

"In a group of people, ask the person the question you need answered and when they lie to you, I just say — 'You lying &*#^, you never said that in your whole life.' Everybody breaks up laughing and the person obviously is caught. We all make a joke of it and it is much harder for them to be dishonest the next time."

"When it is obvious that someone's story has little connection to reality, I say 'Oh my gosh, almost the exact same thing happened to me.' This achieves the objective of 1) pointing out to the tall tale teller that you are on to him; and 2) makes everyone else realize how ridiculous this co-worker's stories are getting, and forces everyone to evaluate the veracity of all future tall tales.

"When trying to detect a liar, I act absent-minded and pause with unfinished sentences. The liar tends to fill these spaces. I have caught liars this way."

"I give them my biggest smile and usually say something like, 'Come on Pinocchio, your nose is growing.' Then I laugh gently. If they seem embarrassed or avoid eye contact and smile and say nothing, then I have confirmation that they have lied. They know it and I know it. Reading their body language is extremely important. Once word gets around that you are not a fool who will believe anything, most people won't try it with you."

"If you must interact with this person, try to have a third party present to be a neutral witness to any conversation that takes place. Also, if possible, interact via e-mail and be professional. We all know e-mails are a nice time-stamped paper trail of the facts."

"There are different ways to deal with lies, depending on the reason and the frequency. The solutions range from ignoring the lies, to training, to confrontation, to verbal and written warnings, and perhaps, as a last resort if the damage by the lies is substantial, termination."

"Of course he is lying. Everyone is lying. It's part of the human condition. Bosses lie all the time. Workers give them lies in reply and to each other."


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[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 naοve 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
  33. John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 3:05 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?

    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?

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. biz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 3:10 pm GMT @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".

    No what I have put is the generally accepted definition used in journalistic and sociological works about conspiracy theory culture, e.g. this book .

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    No what I have put is the generally accepted definition used in journalistic and sociological works about conspiracy theory culture, e.g. this book.
    Journalism? Sociological works? You choose to quote even bigger liars as defining "conspiracy theory"?


    "A conspiracy theory is a belief that a secret conspiracy has actually been decisive in producing a political event or evil outcome which the theorists strongly disapprove of. The conspiracy theory typically identifies the conspirators, provides evidence that supposedly links them together with an evil plan to harm the body politic, and may also point to a supposed cover up by authorities or media who should have stopped the conspiracy. The duty of the theorist is to pick from a myriad of facts and assumptions and reassemble them to form a picture of the conspiracy, as in a jigsaw puzzle. A theorist may publicly identify specific conspirators, and if they deny the allegations that is evidence they have been sworn to secrecy and are probably guilty."

    Similar, agreed, but with noteworthy differences. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  35. CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 3:22 pm GMT • 200 Words

    Good epistemological analysis.

    The great flaw in the Western system of "democratic" government is that hardly anyone knows the meaning of the word "epistemology", let alone have any grasp of the underlying challenge of knowing what they know, or rather knowing how little they know beyond what they know from direct personal experience. This is a challenge made vastly more difficult in the modern age when almost everything we know is derived not from personal experience, or from other people of whose character and intellectual competence we have some personal knowledge, but from the arrangement of ink on paper or of pixels on a video screen. To this problem, there is probably no solution, although either a sharp restriction of the franchise to those of some maturity and education, or a division of the franchise according to what each particular individual could be expected to know something about, would be a step in the right direction.

    As it is, we will, inevitably, continue to be the target of high powered manipulation by corporate owned media and other powerful interests.

    Professor Lance Haven de Smith, whose book you mention is an expert on SCADS, or state crimes against democracy. An article by him on this topic is available here . There is some interesting academic material about SCADs here .

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. nsa says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 3:25 pm GMT • 100 Words

    In spook circles, leaving clues is referred to as inoculation .refer to the work of Bill McGuire in the late 50s and early 60s. For example, we here in Langley and Ft. Meade have left intact on the internet the early picture of the 20′ entry hole left by the "757″ in the facade of the pentagon before the explosion and complete collapse of the exterior wall ..inviting the conspiratorial question " where are the wings, the mangled cadavers, the tail?". This is all just too easy

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. Alden says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 3:27 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Highly reccomend Chris Buckley's book
    "Little Green Men" The plot is that the entire UFO thing was set up after WW3 by the DOJ to keep the money flowing. Like all Buckley's books, it's a great read.

    I stopped believing in anything written in newspapers around 1966 because they were so pro black criminal and anti police

    Have fun on Labor Day

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 3:45 pm GMT • 200 Words @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 .

    No what I have put is the generally accepted definition used in journalistic and sociological works about conspiracy theory culture, e.g. this book.

    Journalism? Sociological works? You choose to quote even bigger liars as defining "conspiracy theory"?

    "A conspiracy theory is a belief that a secret conspiracy has actually been decisive in producing a political event or evil outcome which the theorists strongly disapprove of. The conspiracy theory typically identifies the conspirators, provides evidence that supposedly links them together with an evil plan to harm the body politic, and may also point to a supposed cover up by authorities or media who should have stopped the conspiracy. The duty of the theorist is to pick from a myriad of facts and assumptions and reassemble them to form a picture of the conspiracy, as in a jigsaw puzzle. A theorist may publicly identify specific conspirators, and if they deny the allegations that is evidence they have been sworn to secrecy and are probably guilty."

    Similar, agreed, but with noteworthy differences.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. landlubber says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:10 pm GMT

    journalistic and sociological works

    Pravda.

    And like your Pravda brethren, you are too quick to conflate 9/11 and the moon landings.

    • Replies: @biz
    you are too quick to conflate 9/11 and the moon landings
    Actually, it was Unz himself who stated a while back that if we admit that one of them is possible, then all are possible, or something more or less to that effect.

    In an case, the 9/11 controlled demolition / missile / flight 93 is in a hangar in Cleveland stuff is just as implausible as faking the moon landings. Too many people and organizations and countries needing to be in on it, etc. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

  40. SolontoCroesus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:12 pm GMT • 100 Words @Decius 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 naοve 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.

    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

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus @ 12 min, Thompson asserts that "Leo Strauss was the most important influence on Irving Kristol's intellectual development. My book reveals for the first time the importance of Kristol's 1952 review of Strauss's Persecution and the Art of Writing . For me this is the Rosetta Stone . . .for understanding the deepest layer of neoconservative political philosophy."


    ---
    It should also be noted that Irving Kristol was sponsored by- on the payroll of - the CIA while still in Britain. Kristol has acknowledged that CIA support got his movement off the ground. , @Decius No. Strauss and Schmitt were friendly in the 1930s but Strauss was critical of Schmitt's work even then and said so. Schmitt himself said that Strauss had "seen right through" his arguments. Strauss was no acolyte of Schmitt's, he was a greater and deeper thinker and Schmitt--something Schmitt himself acknowledged. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  41. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Laurel says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:22 pm GMT

    The best strategy is to foster implausible conspiracy theories to create a cloud of disinformation. This technique was used very effectively after 9/11, such that it's very hard to discuss a coverup without being labeled a truther.

    • Replies: @Old fogey 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. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. SolontoCroesus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:24 pm GMT • 100 Words @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

    @ 12 min, Thompson asserts that "Leo Strauss was the most important influence on Irving Kristol's intellectual development. My book reveals for the first time the importance of Kristol's 1952 review of Strauss's Persecution and the Art of Writing . For me this is the Rosetta Stone . . .for understanding the deepest layer of neoconservative political philosophy."

    -
    It should also be noted that Irving Kristol was sponsored by- on the payroll of – the CIA while still in Britain. Kristol has acknowledged that CIA support got his movement off the ground.

    • Replies: @Decius So what? That's one guy. How do we even know Kristol interpreted Strauss correctly? Kristol's concerns--data-driven social science--were not Strauss's. And so on and on.

    But all that is a re-frame anyway. The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  44. Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:25 pm GMT • 100 Words @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

    No. Strauss and Schmitt were friendly in the 1930s but Strauss was critical of Schmitt's work even then and said so. Schmitt himself said that Strauss had "seen right through" his arguments. Strauss was no acolyte of Schmitt's, he was a greater and deeper thinker and Schmitt–something Schmitt himself acknowledged.

    • Replies: @5371 This is complete nonsense. Schmitt is a powerful and original thinker, Strauss a weak and derivative one whose real sweet spot was academic politics. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:42 pm GMT • 100 Words @SolontoCroesus @ 12 min, Thompson asserts that "Leo Strauss was the most important influence on Irving Kristol's intellectual development. My book reveals for the first time the importance of Kristol's 1952 review of Strauss's Persecution and the Art of Writing . For me this is the Rosetta Stone . . .for understanding the deepest layer of neoconservative political philosophy."


    ---
    It should also be noted that Irving Kristol was sponsored by- on the payroll of - the CIA while still in Britain. Kristol has acknowledged that CIA support got his movement off the ground.

    So what? That's one guy. How do we even know Kristol interpreted Strauss correctly? Kristol's concerns–data-driven social science–were not Strauss's. And so on and on.

    But all that is a re-frame anyway. The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up.
    Can't back it up or has not done so, so far?

    The day is young . . . the moon has not yet appeared in the eastern sky. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  47. 5371 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:45 pm GMT @Decius No. Strauss and Schmitt were friendly in the 1930s but Strauss was critical of Schmitt's work even then and said so. Schmitt himself said that Strauss had "seen right through" his arguments. Strauss was no acolyte of Schmitt's, he was a greater and deeper thinker and Schmitt--something Schmitt himself acknowledged.

    This is complete nonsense. Schmitt is a powerful and original thinker, Strauss a weak and derivative one whose real sweet spot was academic politics.

    • Agree: SolontoCroesus • Replies: @Decius Schmitt disagreed with you. , @Decius At any rate it's sort of absurd to watch you people chase your tails. All that you "know" or think you know is that Strauss is bad. But Schmitt is good. But Strauss is derivative of Schmitt. Doesn't that make Strauss good, or Schmitt bad?

    Schmitt is famous for arguing in favor of the essential particularity of politics--i.e., against alleged neocon universalism. So if Strauss is derivative of Schmitt, how can he be a neocon universalist?

    Strauss in fact agrees with Schmitt on the essential particularity of politics and says so, but finds a deeper source, with deeper arguments, in Plato. Schmitt admitted that his own attempt to fortify his particularism was build on the quick-sandy foundation of modern rationalism, which Strauss taught him to see through. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  48. The Alarmist says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:50 pm GMT @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?

    I was having a little fun with the fact that a Congress Critter thought the Mars Rover could drive up to an American flag planted by the Astronauts on the Earth's Moon.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:54 pm GMT @5371 This is complete nonsense. Schmitt is a powerful and original thinker, Strauss a weak and derivative one whose real sweet spot was academic politics.

    Schmitt disagreed with you.

    • Replies: @5371 This way of arguing, too, is redolent of an academic personality cult, not of actual scholarship. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:59 pm GMT • 100 Words @5371 This is complete nonsense. Schmitt is a powerful and original thinker, Strauss a weak and derivative one whose real sweet spot was academic politics.

    At any rate it's sort of absurd to watch you people chase your tails. All that you "know" or think you know is that Strauss is bad. But Schmitt is good. But Strauss is derivative of Schmitt. Doesn't that make Strauss good, or Schmitt bad?

    Schmitt is famous for arguing in favor of the essential particularity of politics–i.e., against alleged neocon universalism. So if Strauss is derivative of Schmitt, how can he be a neocon universalist?

    Strauss in fact agrees with Schmitt on the essential particularity of politics and says so, but finds a deeper source, with deeper arguments, in Plato. Schmitt admitted that his own attempt to fortify his particularism was build on the quick-sandy foundation of modern rationalism, which Strauss taught him to see through.

    • Replies: @5371 When you can pin Strauss down to a definite meaning, it is false, banal or both. He is usually too obfuscatory to be pinned down. Schmitt is easy to understand and shows you true things you had not thought of before. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. The Alarmist says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:00 pm GMT @John Jeremiah Smith
    This is a good piece which deserved an acceptable level of mental hygiene in the comment section. Unfortunately, two of the first nine comments are from morons spamming their "no lunar landing" drivel.
    Indeed, and absolute drivel. During the first two moon landings, I was working as an electronic technician, aligning and tuning the radio communications antennas at one of the monitor sites. Unless the physics of the electromagnetic Universe was altered by the conspirators, the origin of radio transmissions from the landing crew could only have come from the Moon. Either that, or space aliens operating a whole 'nuther conspiracy used "seekrut" technology to make it look like signals received at every monitor station were from the Moon. If so, kudos on a boss fake-out scheme.

    "Unless the physics of the electromagnetic Universe was altered by the conspirators, the origin of radio transmissions from the landing crew could only have come from the Moon. "

    I suppose NASA could have sent an S-Band repeater to the Moon.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    I suppose NASA could have sent an S-Band repeater to the Moon.
    There's more than one scenario that can be assembled to explain any one or two conditions that would have to be "covered" in order to carry out a conspiracy of deception regarding the Moon landings. Considering the inferior level of video jiggering available at the time, it seems to me that providing full "evidence" of the low-gravity behavior of objects, and the absolute two-color light/shadow effects in an absence of atmosphere would be the most difficult.

    The principle of parsimony becomes ascendant at some point in that Hall of Mirrors. It was easier to go to the Moon than it was to fake it.

    Not to be arch, but, even with the repeater on the moon, what about the bounce echo from the tight-beam signal coming from Earth carrying the deceptive info? ;-) Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  52. Hibernian says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:02 pm GMT @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?

    "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?

    • Replies: @anonymous So it would seem. That critical intelligence on the Japanese was deliberately kept from Admiral Kimmel and General Short by FDR and his closest military officials is indisputable.

    The question "why?" has never been answered in any meaningful sense.

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4742-pearl-harbor-scapegoating-kimmel-and-short Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  53. SolontoCroesus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:07 pm GMT • 100 Words @Decius So what? That's one guy. How do we even know Kristol interpreted Strauss correctly? Kristol's concerns--data-driven social science--were not Strauss's. And so on and on.

    But all that is a re-frame anyway. The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up.

    The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up.

    Can't back it up or has not done so, so far?

    The day is young . . . the moon has not yet appeared in the eastern sky.

    • Replies: @Decius I know Strauss's books. I am guessing that Unz does not because if he did, he would not attribute to Strauss what he did. At any rate, even if Unz does know the books, I fail to see what passages he could cite to support the paragraph that I highlighted.

    As noted, the claim sounds vaguely derivative of Drury, who hates Strauss (and gets everything wrong) but even she doesn't quite say what Unz says. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  54. Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:11 pm GMT • 200 Words @Wizard of Oz From my experience of actors, including amateur actors i have no problem believing Pat Casey's old guy talking about aliens was either a scripted gig maybe for a bet, maybe to see if he could get some money for his family or for medical treatment and the "tells" I totally discount though it might merely be evidence that he's been telling the story for yonks and no one bothers to pull him up on the one mentioned.

    As to the demeanour of the one astronaut that I have now seen from below your comment it does invite questions but yyou seem to be wrong about it being an occasion for celebration. It seems to be much later when they are probably bored out of their minds and quite pissed off at being required to perform yet again as circus ponies.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9Jw0pwTtus

    Ok, what about that tell? You should really watch the whole thing here if you haven't:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NlJQJUUqR4

    My friend knows the guy that interviewed the man about Eisenhower and area 51. He's supposed to be the steely-eyed vet in a field full of dupes. It's possible he's a charlatan employing an actor, but that's not what it sounds like. The one that I can't decide on is this disinformation agent Richard Doty from the film Mirage Men. That one is worth watching.

    My education into the likelihood of extraterrestrials took a quantum leap when I watched The Pyramid Codes on netflix. Mind you that is not an idea the series puts forward-the footage of the Pyramid they don't take tourists to see is enough to know those folks had technology we do not have today.

    For the record I believe we landed on the moon. But, the idea that we did not probably comes from the underbelly of our own government.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. KA says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:19 pm GMT • 600 Words

    "HANGZHOU, China - The image of a 5-year-old Syrian boy, dazed and bloodied after being rescued from an airstrike on rebel-held Aleppo, reverberated around the world last month, a harrowing reminder that five years after civil war broke out there, Syria remains a charnel house.
    But the reaction was more muted in Washington, where Syria has become a distant disaster rather than an urgent crisis. President Obama's policy toward Syria has barely budged in the last year and shows no sign of change for the remainder of his term. The White House has faced little pressure over the issue,
    That frustrates many analysts because they believe that a shift in policy will come only when Mr. Obama has left office. "Given the tone of this campaign, I doubt the electorate will be presented with realistic and intelligible options, with respect to Syria," said Frederic C. Hof, a former adviser on Syria in the administration."
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/world/middleeast/obama-syria-foreign-policy.html?action=click&contentCollection=Europe&module=RelatedCoverage&region=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article&_r=0

    Spinning by NYT can and will form the base of a conspiracy .

    The world we see are not festooned with the morbid pictures and the world has not one echo chamber among its 7 billions that are reverberating with his sad cry .
    No American taxpayer is piling pressure on Obama.
    Tone of the election doesn't and shouldn't provide option on Syria . Electorates are not asking to know what America should do.
    Next president will introduce something that he wont share w and making them known before the voters will destroy his chances.Someone shared and was evisecrated by NYT and other as Putin's Trojan horse .

    NYT is lying . But this lies can help build the necessarry platform for future wars . Another Sarin gas? Another Harriri death? Another picture of beheadings ? Another story of North Korean supplying nukes ? Wrongful consequences from falsehood will not cost NYT excepting a correction years later somehere in the 5 th page. A conspiracy to hatch is something that has no consequences for the plotters .
    If Dulles were hanged for role in all the illegal things he had done in Guatemala and Iran,may be Kennedy would have survived . But his earlier political escapades were also built on something that were way earlier . Conspiracy keeps on coming back begging for one more round ,for one more time .
    NYT will be there claiming for the right to crow – how it has prepared the ground.

    All are done openly . When resistance is mounted, Bernie Sander supporters are sent home with flowers and a reminder to vote for Clinton because in this age all over the world America is the exception that has heard them . With that satisfaction they can go home and vote as expected. They are not allowed to know how the campaign marginalized Sander's chances from the get go.
    Neither NYT explains how reckless Trump with nuclear code will start a nuclear war with Putin's Russia despite being his co conspirator .

    Chalabi s daughter exclaimed in early part of 2004 – We are heroes in mistakes. She won't say it now . Conspirators would love to get the credit and be recognized . It all depends on the success .
    First Iraq war,if went bad from begining, Lantos wouldn't have been reelected . But again who knows what media can deliver . They delivered Joe Liberman .

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. Carlton Meyer says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:20 pm GMT • 200 Words

    Some conspiracies are eventually acknowledged. For recent examples, our government finally admitted that our CIA overthrew the government of Iran in the 1950s. The sinking of the Lusitania because it carried tons of munitions and weapons during WW I has been mostly accepted since 1982, after the sunken ship was discovered and searched by divers. For example, Encyclopedia Britannica:

    "The Lusitania was carrying a cargo of rifle ammunition and shells (together about 173 tons), and the Germans, who had circulated warnings that the ship would be sunk, felt themselves fully justified in attacking a vessel that was furthering the war aims of their enemy. The German government also felt that, in view of the vulnerability of U-boats while on the surface and the British announcement of intentions to arm merchant ships, prior warning of potential targets was impractical."

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lusitania-British-ship

    One of the newest has got little attention, the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich, who was a computer guy leaking info to Wikileaks.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html

    If we truly had aggressive news competition in the USA, this story would remain in the headlines, but of course its implications are not acceptable. However, stories about Russian hackers persist with no hard evidence.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. JL says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:27 pm GMT • 100 Words @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.

    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.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    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.
    Yes, and how many players, each with what orientation and degree of focus? The 0.1% population contains 10,000 - 50,00o potential players, globally.

    It is my opinion that the extremely-high degree of corruption, within the mighty engine of resource consumption and bribery that is the US government, contributes greatly to the "big picture" of ongoing conflict among the members of the oligarchy. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  58. Jeffrey S. says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:31 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Beard was an interesting guy, but's let's not forget that his central thesis regarding the founding of this country doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny:

    http://www.libertylawsite.org/2014/10/10/charles-beard-living-legend-or-archaic-icon/

    Meanwhile, I think it helps to think about conspiracies philosophically - rigorous thought can help clear up sloppy thinking (which is found in many such theories):

    http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/01/trouble-with-conspiracy-theories.html

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. Mulegino1 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:35 pm GMT • 100 Words

    With respect to conspiracies, there are two equally absurd extreme views which distract from reality: one is the childish rejection of all conspiracy theories and the other the childish belief that every appreciable newsworthy event with a political, economic or social impact is the result of a nefarious conspiracy. The truth, of course, is to be found in the middle.

    Only a child – or its intellectual equivalent, i.e., a low information infotainment consumer – could believe in the official version of 9/11, or the Manichean narrative of the Second World War and the Myth of the 6 Million.

    On the other hand, there is Hillary Clinton with her "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" and idiots like Glenn Beck who believe that Vladimir Putin is seeking to conquer the world.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:43 pm GMT • 100 Words @SolontoCroesus
    The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up.
    Can't back it up or has not done so, so far?

    The day is young . . . the moon has not yet appeared in the eastern sky.

    I know Strauss's books. I am guessing that Unz does not because if he did, he would not attribute to Strauss what he did. At any rate, even if Unz does know the books, I fail to see what passages he could cite to support the paragraph that I highlighted.

    As noted, the claim sounds vaguely derivative of Drury, who hates Strauss (and gets everything wrong) but even she doesn't quite say what Unz says.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Ron Unz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:44 pm GMT • 300 Words NEW! @Decius 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 naοve 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.

    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.

    • Replies: @Decius The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained--not to say serious--attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work of William Altman. I don't think he even comes close to making his case.

    The letter can more charitably and reasonably read as a frank acknowledgement of the failure of Weimar liberalism and of liberalism generally precisely to take into account nationalist sentiment but instead to "universalize" all particulars without due attention to differing conditions, circumstances, "matter," and so on. In other words, Strauss is defending the "concept of the political" both from liberal universalism and from the simple-minded identification of particularism (or nationalism) with fascism. Sound familiar? All nationalist sentiment is fascism, Trump is a Nazi, and so on. An "argument" as old as hills and which Strauss saw through immediately.

    Once again, though, the tail is chased. How can Strauss be both a universalist neo-con and a particularist-nationalist-fascist at the same time? The only common thread is: Strauss is bad.

    In my view, Strauss is good. More to the point, I find stronger intellectual support in Strauss for my own nationalist leanings and pro-Trumpism than I find in any other intellectual source of any depth. I am in the minority among Straussians in thinking so, but I am not alone. Morevoer, I think in open debate, I have a stronger case for Straussian particularism than others can make for Straussian universalism.

    And, not incidentally, none of this points to any such views on conspiracy as you put into Strauss's mouth. , @Jacques Sheete While I've read nothing by Prof. deHaven-Smith, from what you've written, he and DiLorenzo would probably agree.

    Here's a short but readable eval of Strauss' ideas, and DiLorenzo is one academician whom I somewhat trust.:


    Moronic Intellectuals
    By Thomas DiLorenzo

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/09/thomas-woods/the-neocon-godfather/ Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  62. Mulegino1 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:48 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?

    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.

    • Agree: SolontoCroesus Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Sam Shama says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:59 pm GMT @5371 This is a good piece which deserved an acceptable level of mental hygiene in the comment section. Unfortunately, two of the first nine comments are from morons spamming their "no lunar landing" drivel. In all probability the "no nuclear weapons" clowns will also be here imminently. Oh well, a delicious sweet dish will attract a fly as much as a gourmet.

    [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
  64. Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:00 pm GMT • 300 Words @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.

    The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained–not to say serious–attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work of William Altman. I don't think he even comes close to making his case.

    The letter can more charitably and reasonably read as a frank acknowledgement of the failure of Weimar liberalism and of liberalism generally precisely to take into account nationalist sentiment but instead to "universalize" all particulars without due attention to differing conditions, circumstances, "matter," and so on. In other words, Strauss is defending the "concept of the political" both from liberal universalism and from the simple-minded identification of particularism (or nationalism) with fascism. Sound familiar? All nationalist sentiment is fascism, Trump is a Nazi, and so on. An "argument" as old as hills and which Strauss saw through immediately.

    Once again, though, the tail is chased. How can Strauss be both a universalist neo-con and a particularist-nationalist-fascist at the same time? The only common thread is: Strauss is bad.

    In my view, Strauss is good. More to the point, I find stronger intellectual support in Strauss for my own nationalist leanings and pro-Trumpism than I find in any other intellectual source of any depth. I am in the minority among Straussians in thinking so, but I am not alone. Morevoer, I think in open debate, I have a stronger case for Straussian particularism than others can make for Straussian universalism.

    And, not incidentally, none of this points to any such views on conspiracy as you put into Strauss's mouth.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained–not to say serious–attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work of William Altman.
    Well, I decided I might as well google up the letter, and found this extended discussion in Harpers by someone who clearly dislikes Strauss and the Neocons, with a link to a full translation of Strauss's controversial missive.

    http://harpers.org/blog/2008/01/will-the-real-leo-strauss-please-stand-up/

    Offhand, it does indeed seem like I misremembered some of the details. Strauss apparently didn't seem to like the Nazis very much, but it certainly sounds like he had positive feelings towards the Fascists. In any event, the following excerpt makes me wonder whether he was actually a "liberal," or merely pretended to be since his income probably depended upon liberal donors and institutions...

    And, what concerns this matter: the fact that the new right-wing Germany does not tolerate us says nothing against the principles of the right. To the contrary: only from the principles of the right, that is from fascist, authoritarian and imperial principles, is it possible with seemliness, that is, without resort to the ludicrous and despicable appeal to the droits imprescriptibles de l'homme(5) to protest against the shabby abomination...There is no reason to crawl to the cross, neither to the cross of liberalism, as long as somewhere in the world there is a glimmer of the spark of the Roman thought.
    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Robard says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:04 pm GMT

    If government doesn't believe in conspiracies, why have secret services in the first place? Either they want to thwart conspiracies or they are creating their own or both.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. Lawrence Fitton says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:18 pm GMT • 200 Words

    belief in the fantastic is way more entertainment than belief in the mundane. that why the history channel prefers clownish, ancient alien astronaut theorists to phd historians.
    still, the unlimited universe of chance & probability assures rare events happen all the time. in other words, improbable events – because there is infinity of them – are bound to happen with regularity.

    for instance, the author highlights the improbability of a bunch of arabs with box cutters as the perpetrators of 9/11. he's right. taken in isolation, of all the things that might have happened, the occurrence is rare in indeed. but, today, something that's never happened before will happen. and tomorrow too and the day after that. but, because the occurrences may not be as spectacular as 9/11, few will learn about them.

    we believe what we want to believe. we can't know everything about anything, so there will always be questions.

    9/11, the kennedy assassination, the lunar landing, aliens built the pyramids.

    what is real and what is not depends on a point of view.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. •
  68. Jacques Sheete says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:24 pm GMT @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.

    While I've read nothing by Prof. deHaven-Smith, from what you've written, he and DiLorenzo would probably agree.

    Here's a short but readable eval of Strauss' ideas, and DiLorenzo is one academician whom I somewhat trust.:

    Moronic Intellectuals
    By Thomas DiLorenzo

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/09/thomas-woods/the-neocon-godfather/

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:29 pm GMT • 100 Words @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.

    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.

    Yes, and how many players, each with what orientation and degree of focus? The 0.1% population contains 10,000 – 50,00o potential players, globally.

    It is my opinion that the extremely-high degree of corruption, within the mighty engine of resource consumption and bribery that is the US government, contributes greatly to the "big picture" of ongoing conflict among the members of the oligarchy.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. • Replies: @Anonymous
    I was a boy watching those transmissions you helped bring us. Thank you, Sir!

    Apollo is one of the greatest human achievements, my absolute favorite historical event. I consider myself lucky to have been alive and old enough to witness and understand it.

    ...

    And I believe there has been in fact some conspiratorial effort over the years to promote their idiocy, a conspiracy on the part of those who would weaken American pride and reputation.

    Sure, it's certainly possible that there's been a conspiracy to promote the notion that the moon landing was a hoax.

    But it's also true that people with deep emotional attachments to things, especially inculcated in childhood, have trouble considering and questioning certain things. And it's well known that propaganda deliberately tries to inculcate these sort of emotional attachments in order to be more effective. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  72. Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:31 pm GMT • 100 Words @Decius 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 naοve 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.

    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.

    • Replies: @Decius The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious. Yes, Bill K loves Strauss. That really doesn't prove much about Strauss either way. I believe, though of course cannot prove since Strauss can't speak, that Strauss would have opposed the Iraq War. He would have seen it as imprudent and prudence is the supreme virtue of the statesman.

    You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points). Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  73. Ron Unz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:34 pm GMT • 200 Words NEW! @Decius The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained--not to say serious--attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work of William Altman. I don't think he even comes close to making his case.

    The letter can more charitably and reasonably read as a frank acknowledgement of the failure of Weimar liberalism and of liberalism generally precisely to take into account nationalist sentiment but instead to "universalize" all particulars without due attention to differing conditions, circumstances, "matter," and so on. In other words, Strauss is defending the "concept of the political" both from liberal universalism and from the simple-minded identification of particularism (or nationalism) with fascism. Sound familiar? All nationalist sentiment is fascism, Trump is a Nazi, and so on. An "argument" as old as hills and which Strauss saw through immediately.

    Once again, though, the tail is chased. How can Strauss be both a universalist neo-con and a particularist-nationalist-fascist at the same time? The only common thread is: Strauss is bad.

    In my view, Strauss is good. More to the point, I find stronger intellectual support in Strauss for my own nationalist leanings and pro-Trumpism than I find in any other intellectual source of any depth. I am in the minority among Straussians in thinking so, but I am not alone. Morevoer, I think in open debate, I have a stronger case for Straussian particularism than others can make for Straussian universalism.

    And, not incidentally, none of this points to any such views on conspiracy as you put into Strauss's mouth.

    The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained–not to say serious–attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work of William Altman.

    Well, I decided I might as well google up the letter, and found this extended discussion in Harpers by someone who clearly dislikes Strauss and the Neocons, with a link to a full translation of Strauss's controversial missive.

    http://harpers.org/blog/2008/01/will-the-real-leo-strauss-please-stand-up/

    Offhand, it does indeed seem like I misremembered some of the details. Strauss apparently didn't seem to like the Nazis very much, but it certainly sounds like he had positive feelings towards the Fascists. In any event, the following excerpt makes me wonder whether he was actually a "liberal," or merely pretended to be since his income probably depended upon liberal donors and institutions

    And, what concerns this matter: the fact that the new right-wing Germany does not tolerate us says nothing against the principles of the right. To the contrary: only from the principles of the right, that is from fascist, authoritarian and imperial principles, is it possible with seemliness, that is, without resort to the ludicrous and despicable appeal to the droits imprescriptibles de l'homme(5) to protest against the shabby abomination There is no reason to crawl to the cross, neither to the cross of liberalism, as long as somewhere in the world there is a glimmer of the spark of the Roman thought.

    • Replies: @Decius What is a liberal? That's not a troll question. Strauss was above all a Socratic and Socratic philosophy begins with "what is" questions. One of Strauss's books is entitled Liberalism Ancient and Modern .

    Strauss was apparently a liberal in the US context in that he mostly voted for Dems. He also wrote one acerbically critical letter to National Review.

    However, a mid-20th-century American liberal may have been many things, but unpatriotic or nationalistic they were not. When liberalism turned with McGovern, Strauss looked elsewhere, and then died a year later, so we don't know how his political outlook would, or would not, have changed longer term. But at least in the 40s-60s, he was quite OK with Cold War American liberals. That's perfectly consistent with the nationalist sentiment expressed in the letter to Lowith. Also, Strauss was appalled by the dissoluteness of Weimar--and would become appalled by the dissoluteness of the late 1960s. But America prior was not yet dissolute. And he was appalled by Weimar's weakness. But America pre-Vietnam was not weak. Again, perfectly consistent with the letter.

    Strauss supported the Cold War because he thought the USSR was a real threat in the near term and because he feared, on a higher plane, the imposition of "the universal and homogenous state." He was opposed to that, whereas those to his left were for it. So was he conservative?

    Strauss transcends all these distinctions. That's not to say that they are meaningless. Indeed, he would be the first to say that they are meaningful. But, like Tocqueville, Strauss aimed to see not differently but further than the parties. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  74. Buzz Mohawk says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:48 pm GMT • 100 Words

    By reading Ron's American Pravda series of columns, I am learning things that otherwise I would not have known. I am developing a clearer understanding of the real truth . This is an important contribution to my understanding of of reality!

    And I trust this because of the quality and earnestness of the source.

    This is all very much appreciated.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:50 pm GMT • 300 Words @Ron Unz
    The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained–not to say serious–attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work of William Altman.
    Well, I decided I might as well google up the letter, and found this extended discussion in Harpers by someone who clearly dislikes Strauss and the Neocons, with a link to a full translation of Strauss's controversial missive.

    http://harpers.org/blog/2008/01/will-the-real-leo-strauss-please-stand-up/

    Offhand, it does indeed seem like I misremembered some of the details. Strauss apparently didn't seem to like the Nazis very much, but it certainly sounds like he had positive feelings towards the Fascists. In any event, the following excerpt makes me wonder whether he was actually a "liberal," or merely pretended to be since his income probably depended upon liberal donors and institutions...

    And, what concerns this matter: the fact that the new right-wing Germany does not tolerate us says nothing against the principles of the right. To the contrary: only from the principles of the right, that is from fascist, authoritarian and imperial principles, is it possible with seemliness, that is, without resort to the ludicrous and despicable appeal to the droits imprescriptibles de l'homme(5) to protest against the shabby abomination...There is no reason to crawl to the cross, neither to the cross of liberalism, as long as somewhere in the world there is a glimmer of the spark of the Roman thought.

    What is a liberal? That's not a troll question. Strauss was above all a Socratic and Socratic philosophy begins with "what is" questions. One of Strauss's books is entitled Liberalism Ancient and Modern .

    Strauss was apparently a liberal in the US context in that he mostly voted for Dems. He also wrote one acerbically critical letter to National Review.

    However, a mid-20th-century American liberal may have been many things, but unpatriotic or nationalistic they were not. When liberalism turned with McGovern, Strauss looked elsewhere, and then died a year later, so we don't know how his political outlook would, or would not, have changed longer term. But at least in the 40s-60s, he was quite OK with Cold War American liberals. That's perfectly consistent with the nationalist sentiment expressed in the letter to Lowith. Also, Strauss was appalled by the dissoluteness of Weimar–and would become appalled by the dissoluteness of the late 1960s. But America prior was not yet dissolute. And he was appalled by Weimar's weakness. But America pre-Vietnam was not weak. Again, perfectly consistent with the letter.

    Strauss supported the Cold War because he thought the USSR was a real threat in the near term and because he feared, on a higher plane, the imposition of "the universal and homogenous state." He was opposed to that, whereas those to his left were for it. So was he conservative?

    Strauss transcends all these distinctions. That's not to say that they are meaningless. Indeed, he would be the first to say that they are meaningful. But, like Tocqueville, Strauss aimed to see not differently but further than the parties.

    • Replies: @dahoit Liberals used to say,I might not agree with what you say,but I'll defend you right to say it.
    Today they want to implant Citizenchips.
    Moon landings a hoax?I doubt that,but does it matter to today's terrible times other than a sign of American dominance in space race propaganda?
    Today we send up zionist satellites(when they don't explode) and fund their citizens efforts in militarization of space that threatens all,including US.
    Unbelievable but true. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:50 pm GMT @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?

    So it would seem. That critical intelligence on the Japanese was deliberately kept from Admiral Kimmel and General Short by FDR and his closest military officials is indisputable.

    The question "why?" has never been answered in any meaningful sense.

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4742-pearl-harbor-scapegoating-kimmel-and-short

    • Replies: @Darin Yes, why?

    If you want to start a war, would you want to start with great defeat and loss of your fleet?

    In the thirties, there were three cases of false flag attacks created to justify a war.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_Incident
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila

    In none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what would be the point? , @anonymous Here is Admiral Kimmel himself telling us that the FDR administration in Washington deliberately withheld vital intelligence from him, intelligence that would have saved countless lives:

    https://youtu.be/Bo00IcRj_4Y Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  77. Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:54 pm GMT • 100 Words @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.

    The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious. Yes, Bill K loves Strauss. That really doesn't prove much about Strauss either way. I believe, though of course cannot prove since Strauss can't speak, that Strauss would have opposed the Iraq War. He would have seen it as imprudent and prudence is the supreme virtue of the statesman.

    You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).

    • Replies: @utu Unless you give some evidence that Strauss was a Reptilian or at least that he was a skeptic about the Moon landing there is no need for further discussion on Strauss here. , @Pat Casey
    The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious.
    That's not what I did. Don't do that. You seemed to be saying the neo-cons do not hail from the school of Strauss as this Atlas fellow said they did. I was saying they do, according to them.

    It was pretty obvious back then that the weekly standard was acting as an organ of the bush administration more than a member of the media. I remember there was even a tepid discussion about how we as journalist should feel about these fellas with one foot in the media and one foot in the politics. Does that have anything to do with the style Strauss bespoke? My understanding is that Strauss addressed his philosophy not to Princes but certain among the reading public. That turns out to first of all mean political journalists who will sacrifice the integrity of their profession for the sake of a particular kind of proud story about the USA polity and its villains. Yes I do think people like Bill Krystol and Michael Ledeen saw themselves in terms as dramatic as that.

    You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).
    You mean I was right about Strauss having a conspiracy theory of philosophy. I didn't say anything about the second half. I read Paul Gottfried and I agree Strauss was a ridiculous scholar. Of course I believe you when you say in so many words that Strauss did not like philosophies that license mass movements of true believers. Full stop right there. Now we can count back from all them and make this an exercise in splitting hairs. What audience to be precise did Strauss exactly have in mind? Actually I don't think he deserves that much credit; I don't think he really knew who he was writing for. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:59 pm GMT • 100 Words

    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."

    And what do you know, the term "conspiracy theories" was non-existent in books before JFK's assassination but took off right after, according to Google's Ngram Viewer: https://is.gd/GYioQZ

    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter I see that someone has updated a document about that:

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Conspiracy_theory#Pejorative_meaning Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

  79. • Replies: @Mr. Anon "Oleynik is Ukrainian."

    The Ukrainians were, you know, part of the same Soviet Union which failed to put a man on the Moon.

    "At any rate, attacking his ethnic background is just a cheap ad hominem argument."

    No, it is pointing out what might be real motive for him to do what he is doing.

    "Soros and his foundations funded, and still do presumably, scholarships and education grants in Eastern Europe following the Soviet collapse."

    And what do you think of Soros? Do you think he is a manipulator of peoples, movements, entire governments? If so, what does it say that this guy was once on his payroll? Or do you simply temporarily suspend one part of your world-view when it becomes inconvenient for another part of it?

    In any event, his purported photgraphic analysis is crap. He's talking about parallax exhibited in pairs of images taken from different bearings - but the pictures themselves were not even taken at the same locations, as can easily be seen from the details in the foreground. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  80. Darin says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 7:30 pm GMT • 100 Words @anonymous So it would seem. That critical intelligence on the Japanese was deliberately kept from Admiral Kimmel and General Short by FDR and his closest military officials is indisputable.

    The question "why?" has never been answered in any meaningful sense.

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4742-pearl-harbor-scapegoating-kimmel-and-short

    Yes, why?

    If you want to start a war, would you want to start with great defeat and loss of your fleet?

    In the thirties, there were three cases of false flag attacks created to justify a war.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_Incident
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila

    In none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what would be the point?

    • Replies: @exiled off mainstreet I didn't notice Gleiwitz was mentioned in another posting before I mentioned it. I tend go along with you and suspect incompetence rather than purpose was the cause of the Pearl Harbor disaster, though the incompetence may have included failure to adequately warn those on the ground at Pearl Harbor. Personally, I don't back the "truther" version of the twin towers because that would have required a broader conspiracy than I think could have succeeded. My guess is that the neighboring building was destroyed as part of the cleanup effort. I do think, however, that the authorities knew something was up, didn't believe it could ever succeed and used it as a sort of Reichstag Fire incident to brush aside constitutional democracy in the US. I also suspect that the Mossad knew more than they let on. My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been far different. I suspect that the anthrax thing was more likely started by the yankee regime as a home-grown conspiracy. , @Hippopotamusdrome

    If you want to start a war, would you want to start with great defeat and loss of your fleet?
    The fleet wasn't lost. The carriers were out at sea and not sunk. Eight battleships, three cruisers and three destroyers were damaged. Battleships were obsolete by that time in the face of aircraft. Battleships were mainly used as AA platforms to protect carriers and to bombard airfields. , @Jonathan Revusky
    In none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what would be the point?
    Well, the answer should be obvious, no? You have an existing situation in which eat least 80% of the U.S. population is opposed to the war and you want to mobilize them. If you play chess, there are all these openings called "gambits" where you sacrifice a pawn or two to more rapidly mobilize your forces.

    3000 people is really just peanuts on a national level. If the result is that you get all this outrage and suddenly the majority of the population is screaming for war, well that could be well worth it. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  81. Miro23 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 7:35 pm GMT • 700 Words @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?

    [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.

    • Replies: @nsa We here in Ft. Meade and Langley, using our vast media assets, have successfully inoculated the public against these deviant 911 ideas. Game over....we have achieved full spectrum dominance and total information awareness throughout 99% of the planet. , @Wizard of Oz Thanks. I wonder what will happen to Israel's support if and when serious money and research and publicity is put into telling the whole Liberty story and making sure it is drummed in.

    Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  82. anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 7:38 pm GMT @anonymous So it would seem. That critical intelligence on the Japanese was deliberately kept from Admiral Kimmel and General Short by FDR and his closest military officials is indisputable.

    The question "why?" has never been answered in any meaningful sense.

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4742-pearl-harbor-scapegoating-kimmel-and-short

    Here is Admiral Kimmel himself telling us that the FDR administration in Washington deliberately withheld vital intelligence from him, intelligence that would have saved countless lives:

    https://youtu.be/Bo00IcRj_4Y

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 7:38 pm GMT @Decius The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious. Yes, Bill K loves Strauss. That really doesn't prove much about Strauss either way. I believe, though of course cannot prove since Strauss can't speak, that Strauss would have opposed the Iraq War. He would have seen it as imprudent and prudence is the supreme virtue of the statesman.

    You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).

    Unless you give some evidence that Strauss was a Reptilian or at least that he was a skeptic about the Moon landing there is no need for further discussion on Strauss here.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Erik Sieven says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 7:40 pm GMT @Kirt 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.

    "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

    • Replies: @Kirt "probably everything think that what he does is good, not evil"

    Yeah, that's true. I think that it was Saint Thomas Aquinas who said that evil is always done under an aspect of good. Hence no one will consider himself a conspirator other than perhaps in a legal sense if he is aware that what he is doing is illegal. Apart from that the charge of conspiracy will always come from opponents; e.g. Hilly's charge of "a vast right-wing conspiracy". Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  85. Darin says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 7:47 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Another question to all conspirologists out there: what you think about Trump plant theory?

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

    https://www.facebook.com/ClintonTrumpConspiracy

    Is Donald Trump paid by Clintons to let Hillary win? This need no big conspiracy, only Donald, Bill, Hill and few of their closest advisors would be on the plot, and it fits the character and modus operandi of the plotters. Any thoughts?

    • Replies: @RobinG For a while I've wondered if Hillary funded Martin O'Malley, and also Lincoln Chaffee, just to give the illusion that there was some competition, and to give her an excuse to get media exposure in the primaries.

    (Hat-tip to a friend who posits that Virginia Independent Greens are a creation of Va. Repubs. for the same reasons.) Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

  86. Dave37 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:01 pm GMT

    Maybe the CIA used conspiracy theory but ordinary perverse humans invented it. If moon lander deniers (and other conspiracies) were proven wrong the rest of us would be happy to see them in public stocks and a ready supply of tomatoes.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones So no freedom of speech in your little world then. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  87. Conspiracy Theories Are True - PaulCraigRoberts.org says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:09 pm GMT • 100 Words

    [ ] I described how the CIA flummoxed insouciant Americans. Ron Unz gives you the intellectual history behind of how two foreign intellectuals, Karl Popper and Leo Strauss, shoved aside the truth-telling American intellectual, Charles Beard, who, like our founding fathers, had his finger on government's propensity to deceive the people with conspiracies. Popper said that conspiracies couldn't happen, and Strauss said they were necessary so that the government could pursue its agendas despite the public's opposition. http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-the-cia-invented-conspiracy-theories/ [ ]

  88. art guerrilla says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:10 pm GMT • 100 Words @Chief Seattle 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.

    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

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Alden says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:17 pm GMT • 100 Words @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?

    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
  90. nsa says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:22 pm GMT @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.

    We here in Ft. Meade and Langley, using our vast media assets, have successfully inoculated the public against these deviant 911 ideas. Game over .we have achieved full spectrum dominance and total information awareness throughout 99% of the planet.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:35 pm GMT • 300 Words @Decius The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious. Yes, Bill K loves Strauss. That really doesn't prove much about Strauss either way. I believe, though of course cannot prove since Strauss can't speak, that Strauss would have opposed the Iraq War. He would have seen it as imprudent and prudence is the supreme virtue of the statesman.

    You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).

    The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious.

    That's not what I did. Don't do that. You seemed to be saying the neo-cons do not hail from the school of Strauss as this Atlas fellow said they did. I was saying they do, according to them.

    It was pretty obvious back then that the weekly standard was acting as an organ of the bush administration more than a member of the media. I remember there was even a tepid discussion about how we as journalist should feel about these fellas with one foot in the media and one foot in the politics. Does that have anything to do with the style Strauss bespoke? My understanding is that Strauss addressed his philosophy not to Princes but certain among the reading public. That turns out to first of all mean political journalists who will sacrifice the integrity of their profession for the sake of a particular kind of proud story about the USA polity and its villains. Yes I do think people like Bill Krystol and Michael Ledeen saw themselves in terms as dramatic as that.

    You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).

    You mean I was right about Strauss having a conspiracy theory of philosophy. I didn't say anything about the second half. I read Paul Gottfried and I agree Strauss was a ridiculous scholar. Of course I believe you when you say in so many words that Strauss did not like philosophies that license mass movements of true believers. Full stop right there. Now we can count back from all them and make this an exercise in splitting hairs. What audience to be precise did Strauss exactly have in mind? Actually I don't think he deserves that much credit; I don't think he really knew who he was writing for.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    I don't think he really knew who he was writing for.
    Love it.

    My theory is that they basically wrote anything that came to mind so long as no one could pin 'em down to specifics, allowed them to keep paying the bills , afforded them a chance to sound "profound," and to be somebody.

    Pretty much all of the type are frauds and only fools (especially the pompous quasi-scientific, pseudo intellectual, ones) take 'em seriously. I agree that the ancients were much more honest but even they were recognized as BSers of high degree by the likes of Aristophanes and Lucian of Samosata to name only two. (I named them because they make particularly entertaining reading.)

    I think the 20th century should be known as the Age of Pathetic Charlatans and I'm glad it's over. May it and the endless gaggle of cheap morons it spawned never return. , @Decius Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield, who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which emerged after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that Strauss's opposition to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal going back to Truman was a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.

    Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about the transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say about war (Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor of preparedness and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize the Iraq War to the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed the former as imprudent, just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was imprudent.

    Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using that word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy is an inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a "conspiracy." however, before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the conspirators and the philosophic life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under modernity, which Strauss opposes. One of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and its proper relationship to society, which he believed modernity had corrupted.

    It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said or why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the thing people try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they don't trace to Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments


  92. Mr. Anon says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 9:19 pm GMT

    "Only a child – or its intellectual equivalent, i.e., a low information infotainment consumer – could believe in the official version of 9/11."

    That is clearly false, as plenty of people who are smart – smarter than you actually – do in fact believe just that.

    • Replies: @Miro23 Being smart has nothing to do with it.

    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). , @Miro23 Or maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the official 9/11 story because that's where their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from the official line on 9/11 are career ending moves .

    In simple terms, MSM owners have decided that 9/11 is a taboo subject (same as USS Liberty) and they decide what gets published. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

  93. Jacques Sheete says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 9:43 pm GMT • 100 Words @Pat Casey
    The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious.
    That's not what I did. Don't do that. You seemed to be saying the neo-cons do not hail from the school of Strauss as this Atlas fellow said they did. I was saying they do, according to them.

    It was pretty obvious back then that the weekly standard was acting as an organ of the bush administration more than a member of the media. I remember there was even a tepid discussion about how we as journalist should feel about these fellas with one foot in the media and one foot in the politics. Does that have anything to do with the style Strauss bespoke? My understanding is that Strauss addressed his philosophy not to Princes but certain among the reading public. That turns out to first of all mean political journalists who will sacrifice the integrity of their profession for the sake of a particular kind of proud story about the USA polity and its villains. Yes I do think people like Bill Krystol and Michael Ledeen saw themselves in terms as dramatic as that.

    You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).
    You mean I was right about Strauss having a conspiracy theory of philosophy. I didn't say anything about the second half. I read Paul Gottfried and I agree Strauss was a ridiculous scholar. Of course I believe you when you say in so many words that Strauss did not like philosophies that license mass movements of true believers. Full stop right there. Now we can count back from all them and make this an exercise in splitting hairs. What audience to be precise did Strauss exactly have in mind? Actually I don't think he deserves that much credit; I don't think he really knew who he was writing for.

    I don't think he really knew who he was writing for.

    Love it.

    My theory is that they basically wrote anything that came to mind so long as no one could pin 'em down to specifics, allowed them to keep paying the bills , afforded them a chance to sound "profound," and to be somebody.

    Pretty much all of the type are frauds and only fools (especially the pompous quasi-scientific, pseudo intellectual, ones) take 'em seriously. I agree that the ancients were much more honest but even they were recognized as BSers of high degree by the likes of Aristophanes and Lucian of Samosata to name only two. (I named them because they make particularly entertaining reading.)

    I think the 20th century should be known as the Age of Pathetic Charlatans and I'm glad it's over. May it and the endless gaggle of cheap morons it spawned never return.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Miro23 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 9:54 pm GMT @Mr. Anon "Only a child – or its intellectual equivalent, i.e., a low information infotainment consumer – could believe in the official version of 9/11."

    That is clearly false, as plenty of people who are smart - smarter than you actually - do in fact believe just that.

    Being smart has nothing to do with it.

    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).

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz I see the biggest problem about a conspiratorial explanation for the WTC 7 collapse is motive. How does it make sense for those who wanted the big splash that hitting buildings 1 and 2 would give? The other major difficulty is the video footage of fires burning all day which had to have heated the steel and therefore potentially weakened it to a critical point. Where's the mystery? , @Mr. Anon "Being smart has nothing to do with it."

    Being smart usually has everything to do with everything. But to people like you, ignorance opens up a world of possibilities, no matter how false or ludicrous they may be. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  95. Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:12 pm GMT • 400 Words @Pat Casey
    The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious.
    That's not what I did. Don't do that. You seemed to be saying the neo-cons do not hail from the school of Strauss as this Atlas fellow said they did. I was saying they do, according to them.

    It was pretty obvious back then that the weekly standard was acting as an organ of the bush administration more than a member of the media. I remember there was even a tepid discussion about how we as journalist should feel about these fellas with one foot in the media and one foot in the politics. Does that have anything to do with the style Strauss bespoke? My understanding is that Strauss addressed his philosophy not to Princes but certain among the reading public. That turns out to first of all mean political journalists who will sacrifice the integrity of their profession for the sake of a particular kind of proud story about the USA polity and its villains. Yes I do think people like Bill Krystol and Michael Ledeen saw themselves in terms as dramatic as that.

    You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).
    You mean I was right about Strauss having a conspiracy theory of philosophy. I didn't say anything about the second half. I read Paul Gottfried and I agree Strauss was a ridiculous scholar. Of course I believe you when you say in so many words that Strauss did not like philosophies that license mass movements of true believers. Full stop right there. Now we can count back from all them and make this an exercise in splitting hairs. What audience to be precise did Strauss exactly have in mind? Actually I don't think he deserves that much credit; I don't think he really knew who he was writing for.

    Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield, who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which emerged after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that Strauss's opposition to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal going back to Truman was a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.

    Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about the transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say about war (Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor of preparedness and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize the Iraq War to the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed the former as imprudent, just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was imprudent.

    Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using that word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy is an inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a "conspiracy." however, before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the conspirators and the philosophic life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under modernity, which Strauss opposes. One of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and its proper relationship to society, which he believed modernity had corrupted.

    It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said or why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the thing people try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they don't trace to Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true.

    • Replies: @Pat Casey Thanks for that response, gave me a better perspective of the man. I guess he did know who he was writing for. And I do think the way to write for history is to write history by disregarding topical preoccupations, except to damn them with faint praise. I have a master like that I always go back to on the topic I care about most.

    And actually the one work of Strauss's I have picked up, years ago, is his Machiavelli; it's one of the thousands of books I've read--- not though one of the few I finished. Brushing up just now by way of wikipedia, it doesn't look like Strauss staked his claim strong enough, if an original reading is what he was writing.

    By the way, I know the Irishman John Toland was the first to publish on the esoteric-exoteric distinction, and coined the term pantheist on a related occasion when he named what new beast Spinoza had born. That was when an esoteric mode of writing was really needed, and you will hear The Ethics called esoteric or cryptic, but I know the work well, and it is no more esoteric than any work of genius that teaches you to read closely right at the start.

    Is The Prince an esoteric work? Did it entertain a conspiracy with special readers? I suppose only if Machiavelli had individuals in mind who might wonder were they all the while in mind when he was writing about how to dispose of them. The point is, there's nothing profound about observing that, it's almost common sense if you take into account the first thing about Machiavelli's circumstance.

    I won't be glib and write Strauss's method off as typically paranoid; it's creative, but bound to be too creative by half. I think it might lead readers to have more fun than's good for learning. , @Wizard of Oz Fascinating. A reminder that one should five lives lived to 120 so one can lots of stories right.... , @5371 You are right that Strauss's culpability for the neocons has been vastly exaggerated. You are wrong that he is worth reading. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  96. Miro23 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:15 pm GMT • 100 Words @Mr. Anon "Only a child – or its intellectual equivalent, i.e., a low information infotainment consumer – could believe in the official version of 9/11."

    That is clearly false, as plenty of people who are smart - smarter than you actually - do in fact believe just that.

    Or maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the official 9/11 story because that's where their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from the official line on 9/11 are career ending moves .

    In simple terms, MSM owners have decided that 9/11 is a taboo subject (same as USS Liberty) and they decide what gets published.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    Or maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the official 9/11 story because that's where their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from the official line on 9/11 are career ending moves .

    In simple terms, MSM owners have decided that 9/11 is a taboo subject (same as USS Liberty) and they decide what gets published.

    Well, I haven't read through all of this enormously long discussion-thread, but I happened to notice this particular comment. Not having been an MSM journalist myself, I can't say whether or not it's true, but a couple of interesting, possibly coincidental, examples come to mind...

    In late July 2010, longtime Canadian journalist Eric Margolis was told his column would be dropped, and just a few weeks later he published a double-length piece expressing strong doubts about 9/11, the first time he'd articulated that position:

    http://www.unz.com/article/911-the-mother-of-all-coincidences/

    In 2007, the parent company of The Chicago Tribune announced it had accepted a leveraged-buyout takeover bid by investor Sam Zell, who planned a massive wave cost-cutting layoffs, which eventually wrecked the company. In late 2007, the Chicago Tribune suddenly ran a very long piece regarding the Liberty Attack, about the only time I've ever seen it discussed in the MSM.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liberty_tuesoct02-story.html Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  97. Konga says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:17 pm GMT @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?

    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

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:17 pm GMT

    A good book, BTW, is Robert Howse's Leo Strauss: Man of Peace . Howse is liberal, FWIW.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  99. ten miles says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:20 pm GMT

    One resents (first), and eventually hates whom they have to lie to. In what regard would our elites, in our electoral democracy, hold us voters in (by now)?
    Kinda answers itself doesn't it?

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  100. nsa says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:32 pm GMT

    How could the godfather of neocon jooies have written so many great waltzes .like the angelic Blue Danube? You see how easy disinfo is for us here in Ft. Meade and Langley?

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  101. Konga says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:35 pm GMT @Darin If moon landings were fake, why hadn't USSR or China revealed it? This would discredit USA before the whole world and won the Cold War in one stroke.

    If USSR was also part of the plot, then whole Cold War was fake - and in this case there would be no need for the small Apollo fake.

    Sometimes, stupid conspiracy theories are just stupid conspiracy theories - or smart fakes, designed to discredit conspirational thinking and distract them from the real conspiracies. Take your pick.

    "Take your pick". I take your prick.

    Do you think anyone would care/accept/believe if USSR did "reveal" the fakery? On the contrary, it would be a point in favour of the "reality" of the landing.

    Sometimes "stupid conspiracy theories" deniers are just that: stupid deniers.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. RobinG says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:45 pm GMT • 100 Words @Darin Another question to all conspirologists out there: what you think about Trump plant theory?

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

    https://www.facebook.com/ClintonTrumpConspiracy

    Is Donald Trump paid by Clintons to let Hillary win? This need no big conspiracy, only Donald, Bill, Hill and few of their closest advisors would be on the plot, and it fits the character and modus operandi of the plotters. Any thoughts?

    For a while I've wondered if Hillary funded Martin O'Malley, and also Lincoln Chaffee, just to give the illusion that there was some competition, and to give her an excuse to get media exposure in the primaries.

    (Hat-tip to a friend who posits that Virginia Independent Greens are a creation of Va. Repubs. for the same reasons.)

    • Replies: @iffen just to give the illusion that there was some competition

    I think she funded Bernie as well. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  103. map says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 11:03 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Popper's point about conspiracy theories really makes no sense. This is the assumption that a conspiracy is like a start-up, one that requires lots of transparency to work because of the need to recruit members for the conspiracy. As soon as one member disagrees, the conspiracy falls apart.

    The problem is that a conspiracy is not like a start-up. The purpose of the start-up is the start-up itself. The purpose of the conspiracy is not the conspiracy itself. Conspiracies are simply vehicles by which like minded people actually find each other. The secrecy is built-in because they are like-minded.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  104. Kirt says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 11:15 pm GMT • 100 Words @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

    "probably everything think that what he does is good, not evil"

    Yeah, that's true. I think that it was Saint Thomas Aquinas who said that evil is always done under an aspect of good. Hence no one will consider himself a conspirator other than perhaps in a legal sense if he is aware that what he is doing is illegal. Apart from that the charge of conspiracy will always come from opponents; e.g. Hilly's charge of "a vast right-wing conspiracy".

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Chuck says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 11:20 pm GMT @Darin If moon landings were fake, why hadn't USSR or China revealed it? This would discredit USA before the whole world and won the Cold War in one stroke.

    If USSR was also part of the plot, then whole Cold War was fake - and in this case there would be no need for the small Apollo fake.

    Sometimes, stupid conspiracy theories are just stupid conspiracy theories - or smart fakes, designed to discredit conspirational thinking and distract them from the real conspiracies. Take your pick.

    Why did the USSR stop at the 38th parallel upon American request?

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Ron Unz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 11:27 pm GMT • 800 Words NEW! @Paul Jolliffe 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

    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.

    [MORE]

    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.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. iffen says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 11:29 pm GMT @RobinG For a while I've wondered if Hillary funded Martin O'Malley, and also Lincoln Chaffee, just to give the illusion that there was some competition, and to give her an excuse to get media exposure in the primaries.

    (Hat-tip to a friend who posits that Virginia Independent Greens are a creation of Va. Repubs. for the same reasons.)

    just to give the illusion that there was some competition

    I think she funded Bernie as well.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. The Alarmist says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 11:36 pm GMT • 200 Words @John Jeremiah Smith
    I suppose NASA could have sent an S-Band repeater to the Moon.
    There's more than one scenario that can be assembled to explain any one or two conditions that would have to be "covered" in order to carry out a conspiracy of deception regarding the Moon landings. Considering the inferior level of video jiggering available at the time, it seems to me that providing full "evidence" of the low-gravity behavior of objects, and the absolute two-color light/shadow effects in an absence of atmosphere would be the most difficult.

    The principle of parsimony becomes ascendant at some point in that Hall of Mirrors. It was easier to go to the Moon than it was to fake it.

    Not to be arch, but, even with the repeater on the moon, what about the bounce echo from the tight-beam signal coming from Earth carrying the deceptive info? ;-)

    I personally think they did land on the moon, but am paying devil's advocate here .

    "Not to be arch, but, even with the repeater on the moon, what about the bounce echo from the tight-beam signal coming from Earth carrying the deceptive info? "

    First, you could transvert from one range to another, so an interested party would have know where to look for the reflection. You could uplink in another range of S-Band, or go lower to L-band if you don't mind a little faraday rotation. Your link-budget would be just sufficient to get a signal from the lunar repeater to Earth, but that would most likely not be enough enough for a full round-trip of the terrestrial signal. Most of your tight beam would still pass fairly wide abeam the moon, and that which was reflected back to Earth would be further degraded by libration fading.

    How do you get Astronauts bouncing and hammers falling in Slo-Mo? Film at 60fps, replay at 30. Ah, but you have to have a really good clean-room to keep dust off the film. Maybe that is why videotape technology took off in the early seventies ;)

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    How do you get Astronauts bouncing and hammers falling in Slo-Mo?
    Yeah, the gravity effects are a BIG job. Just slo-mo-ing won't do it, because you have different curvature of falling profile, and acceleration of gravity is different because moon-mass is less (and non-linear ref 30fps v. 60fps.)

    There would also be additive propagation delay in the radio signals. Pure delay, too -- no compensation would fix that in 1969. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  109. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 11:48 pm GMT • 300 Words @Decius Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield, who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which emerged after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that Strauss's opposition to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal going back to Truman was a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.

    Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about the transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say about war (Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor of preparedness and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize the Iraq War to the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed the former as imprudent, just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was imprudent.

    Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using that word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy is an inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a "conspiracy." however, before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the conspirators and the philosophic life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under modernity, which Strauss opposes. One of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and its proper relationship to society, which he believed modernity had corrupted.

    It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said or why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the thing people try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they don't trace to Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true.

    Thanks for that response, gave me a better perspective of the man. I guess he did know who he was writing for. And I do think the way to write for history is to write history by disregarding topical preoccupations, except to damn them with faint praise. I have a master like that I always go back to on the topic I care about most.

    And actually the one work of Strauss's I have picked up, years ago, is his Machiavelli; it's one of the thousands of books I've read- not though one of the few I finished. Brushing up just now by way of wikipedia, it doesn't look like Strauss staked his claim strong enough, if an original reading is what he was writing.

    By the way, I know the Irishman John Toland was the first to publish on the esoteric-exoteric distinction, and coined the term pantheist on a related occasion when he named what new beast Spinoza had born. That was when an esoteric mode of writing was really needed, and you will hear The Ethics called esoteric or cryptic, but I know the work well, and it is no more esoteric than any work of genius that teaches you to read closely right at the start.

    Is The Prince an esoteric work? Did it entertain a conspiracy with special readers? I suppose only if Machiavelli had individuals in mind who might wonder were they all the while in mind when he was writing about how to dispose of them. The point is, there's nothing profound about observing that, it's almost common sense if you take into account the first thing about Machiavelli's circumstance.

    I won't be glib and write Strauss's method off as typically paranoid; it's creative, but bound to be too creative by half. I think it might lead readers to have more fun than's good for learning.

    • Replies: @Decius First, if you are at all interested in esotericism, I cannot recommend highly enough Philosophy Between the Lines by Meltzer. The only thing critical I can say about this book is that, if one is really an expert in one of the thinkers that Meltzer treats, one will read the passages on that thinker that Meltzer cites and say "So what? I've known that for years. He's shed no new light." Which is true. But irrelevant to what he's trying to do. The book presents an unassailable case that philosophy has been esoteric since Plato. Esotericism long predates Spinoza and has been discussed since ancient times. Strauss simply revived a concept that had been forgotten. Toland (who I am not that familiar with) wrote before esotericism as it were "lapsed." Strauss says that Goethe and Lessing were the last to write this way. When Strauss revived knowledge of esotericism in the late 1930s with the first Xenophon article, he was considered nuts.

    Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.

    I would recommend in addition Strauss's book on Spinoza and especially the much later preface that he wrote when he felt he finally understood Spinoza's esotericism.

    Yes, the Prince (and the Discourses , and Art of War , and Florentine Histories ) are esoteric. It's too complex to argue in a comment thread. Suffice it to say for now that the outrageous "kill that dude" teachings serve and exoteric purpose. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  111. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 12:11 am GMT • 100 Words @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.

    Thanks. I wonder what will happen to Israel's support if and when serious money and research and publicity is put into telling the whole Liberty story and making sure it is drummed in.

    Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes.

    • Replies: @CalDre Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes.

    Controlling, yes; but on-board, no. "Coincidentally", all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely (and in the case of 9/11, since everything was known in advance, the entire flight pattern could have been pre-programmed into a module and uploaded in to the aircrafts' computers).

    If you look into it you will find reports of a a "mystery" large white jet flying over Washington on the morning of 9/11. Some have identified it as a E-4B (a Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command Post), a strategic command and control military aircraft operated by the United States Air Force. We know neither Bush nor Cheney was on that plane.

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

  112. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 12:15 am GMT @Decius Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield, who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which emerged after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that Strauss's opposition to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal going back to Truman was a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.

    Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about the transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say about war (Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor of preparedness and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize the Iraq War to the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed the former as imprudent, just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was imprudent.

    Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using that word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy is an inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a "conspiracy." however, before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the conspirators and the philosophic life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under modernity, which Strauss opposes. One of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and its proper relationship to society, which he believed modernity had corrupted.

    It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said or why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the thing people try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they don't trace to Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true.

    Fascinating. A reminder that one should five lives lived to 120 so one can lots of stories right .

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz Oops! Sorry but I'm sure the typis were obvious. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. whorefinder says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 12:50 am GMT • 200 Words

    No Oswald Hypothesis Denier has ever presented a falsifiable alternative hypothesis to Kennedy's murder.

    The Oswald Hypothesis-as subtly admitted by Oliver Stone-passed the who, what, when, where, why, and how test. It answered all the questions and was plausible according to physics, motive, means, and opportunity. The Deniers try things like "the pristine bullet" and "magic bullet" nonsense, but those criticisms don't stand up to criticism (for example, the bullet was not pristine at all, and the bullet's tragectory was not magic at all, but followed a predictable downward path through the elevated Kennedy to Connolly).

    But more tellingly-no alternative plausible falsifiable hypothesis has been offered. No who, what, when, where , why, and how. Lots of speculation and casting aspersions (LBJ! CIA! ), but no one offers a concrete hypothesis that could be tested or researched to see as plausible.

    If you have a falsifiable alternative theory to the Oswald Hypothesis that satisfies the five w's and h, please offer it here. Until you do so, the only plausible hypothesis is that Oswald acted alone.

    It's been more than 50 years people. Give us something besides that some people disliked Kennedy (all politicians have enemies) and "eye witnesses" who keep changing their stories.

    *Oh, and the KGB worked to spread Kennedy Conspiracy theories because they undermined faith in the U.S. government and took the heat off communists for the killing. They funded some of the conspiracy theorists and promoted them.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy Hey Whorefinder, are you one of Cass Sunstein's boys , by any chance. , @Wizard of Oz I ask only because you may have the JFK assassination stuff well organised in your head and up to date. What do you make of the update by Colin McLaren on the humanly plausible conspiracy theory that the bullet which killed Kennedy was fired accidentally by a Secret Service man standing in the car behind? Are there any knock down arguments against it? Or big holes? , @Robbie Oswald never fired a shot! A hidden witness for over 35 years had proof positive that Oswald was never on the sixth floor, and therefore couldn't be a shooter. Barry Ernest has found Victoria Adams, a witness to Kennedy's murder, on the fourth floor back staircase of the TSBD. She testified to the Warren Commission that she and her co-worker, Sandra Styles saw nobody come down the stairs, after she heard the final shots. Also with them was her supervisor, Dorothy Garner, making three witnesses (or non-witnesses in this case) that totally destroy the lone nut idea that Oswald was doing any shooting there. Adams was badgered and she felt threatened by the Warren Commission and fearing for her life, vanished for decades until Barry Ernest found her.

    So, that ends and totally disproves for all time the formerly plausible hypothesis (theory) that Oswald killed Kennedy.

    The Girl on the Stairs: The Search for a Missing Witness to the JFK Assassination by Barry Ernest (hardcover) April 2, 2013
    https://www.amazon.com/Girl-Stairs-Missing-Witness-Assassination/dp/1455617830

    http://garyrevel.com/jfk/girlonstairs.html
    "The Bob Wilson Interview with Author Barry Ernest 'The Girl on the Stairs: The Search for a Missing Witness to the JFK Assassination' "
    Feb. 18, 2014 (New York, NY)

    #7

    "There is no evidence that definitively places Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom as the shots were being fired. If you believe what Oswald is quoted as telling police during his interrogation sessions (12 hours that went unrecorded and without a stenographer being present), he was eating his lunch in the first-floor domino room when the shots occurred, and then went to the second floor to purchase a drink. This is perhaps why Vicki Adams did not see him on the stairs, why he was so calm during the lunchroom confrontation, and why [Officer Marrion] Baker first described Oswald as entering the lunchroom from a direction other than the back staircase. Certainly Vicki Adams saying she was on the stairs during this critical period presented an obvious problem to the Warren Commission's scenario, which might explain why she was the only person excluded from time tests regarding Oswald's escape, and why corroborating witnesses to her story were ignored."


    #13

    "Lee Harvey Oswald was labeled as a loner, and malcontent. From what you have learned of him, can you describe a bit about who he seems to have actually been?

    He was definitely an odd fellow. But he was also smart, capable, for instance, of beating others more advanced than he was at chess and, if you believe the official record, able to teach himself Russian, one of the most challenging languages to learn, especially on your own. He liked the opera and was a vociferous reader, knowledgeable in a lot of subjects. His actions in both his military and civilian lives seem consistent with someone having a far deeper complexity than what we have been told. Oh, and he was also a rather poor shot!"


    As for the pejorative term conspiracy theory , that was conjured up by the CIA in 1964, to counter the growing threat to the insiders' desire to promote the sole assassin idea, discredit doubters, and shut off debate. https://projectunspeakable.com/conspiracy-theory-invention-of-cia and http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html


    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0292757697

    "In 2013 Professor Lance Dehaven-Smith in a peer-reviewed book published by the University of Texas Press showed that the term "conspiracy theory" was developed by the CIA as a means of undercutting critics of the Warren Commission's report that President Kennedy was killed by Oswald. The use of this term was heavily promoted in the media by the CIA.

    It is ironic that the American left is a major enforcer of the CIA's strategy to shut up skeptics by branding them conspiracy theorists."

    The public has never believed the official story that Oswald acted alone ever since the first Gallup Poll was taken in early Dec. 1963, and continuing to this very day.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
    "Majority in U.S. Still Believe JFK Killed in a Conspiracy" by Art Swift (Nov. 15, 2013)

    Dec. 1963: 52% Conspiracy, 29% One man
    1976: 81% Conspiracy, 11% One man
    1983: 74% Conspiracy, 11% One man
    1992: 77% Conspiracy, 10% One man
    2001: 81% Conspiracy, 13% One man
    2003: 75% Conspiracy, 19% One man
    2013: 61% Conspiracy, 30% One man

    http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-marksman-sharpshooter

    "...According to his Marine score card (Commission Exhibit 239), Oswald was tested twice:

    In December 1956, after "a very intensive 3 weeks' training period" (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.11, p.302), Oswald scored 212: two marks above the minimum for a 'sharpshooter'.

    In May 1959, he scored 191: one mark above the minimum for a 'marksman'.

    "...Colonel Allison Folsom interpreted the results for the Warren Commission:
    "The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application of the instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified at least as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor "shot" and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good "shot".(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, pp.17f)

    Folsom agreed with his (not her) questioner that Oswald "was not a particularly outstanding shot" (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.8, p.311)."


    Phlilip F. Nelson's hardcover 2011 book, a fascinating insight into LBJ's warped and sociopathic (also suffering from bi-polar disorder) personality hidden from the public, 1960-2011,

    LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination
    https://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Mastermind-Assassination-Phillip-Nelson/dp/1616083778

    His 2013 paperback update:
    https://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Mastermind-Assassination-Phillip-Nelson/dp/1620876108 Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

  114. Bill Jones says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:04 am GMT @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.

    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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz So, there is a counter example - an exception???

    Actually not such a good case. It was wartime in a pre Internet era and keeping their mouths shut was emphasised as a patriotic duty for everyone. The work was carried out at remote locations with vast resources behind it. The work was so new and esoteric that the best outsiders might have managed was that something was going on that they didn't understand. And of course it wasn't kept secret from our Soviet allies thanks to their spies. , @Gene Tuttle I did not say it was impossible for Americans to keep secrets, just "difficult."

    The Manhattan Project was in a bygone era -- one in which near total war prevailed. Yet even in that case, the Soviets knew early on what was going on. And stories appeared in the US press early on posing prying questions about Los Alamos, a "forbidden city" where there were reports of "ordnance and explosives" being developed and "tremendous explosions have been heard."
    http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/1944-Cleveland-Press-Forbidden-City.pdf

    Main point however, is that even when conspiracies become obvious they are often largely ignored. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  115. exiled off mainstreet says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:14 am GMT @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?

    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.

    • Replies: @anonymous If Nazis didn't exist zionists would have to invent them -- or maybe they did. Nuland's use of Nazis in Ukraine is sure making it look more and more likely that Hitler was an Osama bin-Laden like creation of Jews and/or the Roosevelt admin.

    1. The British were past masters of all sorts of dirty tricks. Moshe Dayan learned about house demolitions from the British when they were in charge of Mandate Palestine -- pre-1939. http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.657167

    2. Jews in Poland were active participants in killing fellow Poles; from the late 1920s into the mid-1930s Jews in Soviet participated in serious numbers in Stalin's slaughter of several million Russians, Ukrainians, Poles. Some of the killed were Jewish. They didn't need Germans to teach them how to kill on a mass scale, Trotsky, Lenin & Stalin were able tutors.

    3. By early in 1938 The Haganeh had created Mossad al Aliyeh-bet -- zionists planted in Germany and other European cities to shepherd Jews out of their home countries and into Palestine. Francis Nicosia writes about it in Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany , @LondonBob Not forgetting the Manchurian Incident, staging events to justify a war is nothing new. , @Hippopotamusdrome There is a conspiracy theory that it was really Poles. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  116. Bill Jones says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:15 am GMT @Dave37 Maybe the CIA used conspiracy theory but ordinary perverse humans invented it. If moon lander deniers (and other conspiracies) were proven wrong the rest of us would be happy to see them in public stocks and a ready supply of tomatoes.

    So no freedom of speech in your little world then.

    • Replies: @Dave37 Sure, if I can have some revenge for annoying AHs. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  117. exiled off mainstreet says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:44 am GMT • 200 Words @Darin Yes, why?

    If you want to start a war, would you want to start with great defeat and loss of your fleet?

    In the thirties, there were three cases of false flag attacks created to justify a war.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_Incident
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila

    In none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what would be the point?

    I didn't notice Gleiwitz was mentioned in another posting before I mentioned it. I tend go along with you and suspect incompetence rather than purpose was the cause of the Pearl Harbor disaster, though the incompetence may have included failure to adequately warn those on the ground at Pearl Harbor. Personally, I don't back the "truther" version of the twin towers because that would have required a broader conspiracy than I think could have succeeded. My guess is that the neighboring building was destroyed as part of the cleanup effort. I do think, however, that the authorities knew something was up, didn't believe it could ever succeed and used it as a sort of Reichstag Fire incident to brush aside constitutional democracy in the US. I also suspect that the Mossad knew more than they let on. My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been far different. I suspect that the anthrax thing was more likely started by the yankee regime as a home-grown conspiracy.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been far different.
    Joe Lieberman was Gore's running mate.
    Lieberman had the Patriot Act on a shelf waiting for an opportunity ---
    While holding the chair of the "Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs," Lieberman introduced on October 11, 2001, Senate Bill 1534, to establish the US Department of Homeland Security.

    Anticipating the bill's certain passage, Lieberman gave himself automatic chairmanship after he changed the name of his committee to, "The Senate Committee of Homeland Security and Government Affairs."

    Since then, Lieberman has been the main force behind legislation such as:
    -1- The USA Patriot Act
    -2- Protect America Act
    -3- National Emergency Centers Establishment Act
    -4- The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation Act
    -5- The Terrorist Expatriation Act, and the proposed
    -6- Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act.

    , @dahoit Gore chose a likudnik as VP.Anyone thinks the response to 9-11 would have significantly different under those 2 needs further education.
    I notice the Wiz always deflects Israeli involvement.Of course they were aware,the dancing Israelis knew it was a terror attack by dancing before the 2nd plane hit.
    And what govt has been the only beneficiary of 9-11?
    If one can't see that answer,they have been ziocained and lobotomized. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. biz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:48 am GMT • 100 Words @landlubber
    journalistic and sociological works
    Pravda.

    And like your Pravda brethren, you are too quick to conflate 9/11 and the moon landings.

    you are too quick to conflate 9/11 and the moon landings

    Actually, it was Unz himself who stated a while back that if we admit that one of them is possible, then all are possible, or something more or less to that effect.

    In an case, the 9/11 controlled demolition / missile / flight 93 is in a hangar in Cleveland stuff is just as implausible as faking the moon landings. Too many people and organizations and countries needing to be in on it, etc.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy biz, you obviously missed it. Bill Jones, above , debunked your argument even before you made it. , @AnonCrimethink2016 Conflating the two is indeed absurd. Regarding 9/11, the government's own conspiracy theory, that the twin towers were demolished by office fires started by the two planes (not to mention Building 7, which fell without being struck by a plane later that day) does not hold up under any real scrutiny; any child with a decent high school education in chemistry and physics can see that those buildings did not and could not have collapsed due to the official explanation, but rather, they fell due to a prepared demolition. While it is not, and may never be clear exactly who was behind the event, the fact that key aspects of the government's narrative are demonstrably false, and many others unsupported by independent evidence, should give any thinking person considerable pause for thought about the events of that day, and all that has inexorably followed in U.S. foreign policy to this very day. It is a technique of distraction frequently used by supporters of the official conspiracy theory to raise all kinds of broad questions about "How could such a vast conspiracy ever be kept?" etc. (Well, look at the Manhattan Project for starters...) rather than engaging in the particulars of physical evidence and reliable eye witness accounts that attest to the utter nonsense of the lie we've been sold lo these many years. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:51 am GMT • 300 Words @Pat Casey Thanks for that response, gave me a better perspective of the man. I guess he did know who he was writing for. And I do think the way to write for history is to write history by disregarding topical preoccupations, except to damn them with faint praise. I have a master like that I always go back to on the topic I care about most.

    And actually the one work of Strauss's I have picked up, years ago, is his Machiavelli; it's one of the thousands of books I've read--- not though one of the few I finished. Brushing up just now by way of wikipedia, it doesn't look like Strauss staked his claim strong enough, if an original reading is what he was writing.

    By the way, I know the Irishman John Toland was the first to publish on the esoteric-exoteric distinction, and coined the term pantheist on a related occasion when he named what new beast Spinoza had born. That was when an esoteric mode of writing was really needed, and you will hear The Ethics called esoteric or cryptic, but I know the work well, and it is no more esoteric than any work of genius that teaches you to read closely right at the start.

    Is The Prince an esoteric work? Did it entertain a conspiracy with special readers? I suppose only if Machiavelli had individuals in mind who might wonder were they all the while in mind when he was writing about how to dispose of them. The point is, there's nothing profound about observing that, it's almost common sense if you take into account the first thing about Machiavelli's circumstance.

    I won't be glib and write Strauss's method off as typically paranoid; it's creative, but bound to be too creative by half. I think it might lead readers to have more fun than's good for learning.

    First, if you are at all interested in esotericism, I cannot recommend highly enough Philosophy Between the Lines by Meltzer. The only thing critical I can say about this book is that, if one is really an expert in one of the thinkers that Meltzer treats, one will read the passages on that thinker that Meltzer cites and say "So what? I've known that for years. He's shed no new light." Which is true. But irrelevant to what he's trying to do. The book presents an unassailable case that philosophy has been esoteric since Plato. Esotericism long predates Spinoza and has been discussed since ancient times. Strauss simply revived a concept that had been forgotten. Toland (who I am not that familiar with) wrote before esotericism as it were "lapsed." Strauss says that Goethe and Lessing were the last to write this way. When Strauss revived knowledge of esotericism in the late 1930s with the first Xenophon article, he was considered nuts.

    Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.

    I would recommend in addition Strauss's book on Spinoza and especially the much later preface that he wrote when he felt he finally understood Spinoza's esotericism.

    Yes, the Prince (and the Discourses , and Art of War , and Florentine Histories ) are esoteric. It's too complex to argue in a comment thread. Suffice it to say for now that the outrageous "kill that dude" teachings serve and exoteric purpose.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.
    Nonsense.

    Maurizio Viroli has dedicated his life to scholarship on Machiavelli. He reads and understands The Prince (and Machiavelli's other works and life) in the context in which they were written, taking account of the finest details of Machiavelli's human, psychological, and spiritual evolution in the course of career and writing. Viroli walks in Niccolo's footsteps; like Machiavelli, he "puts on the garments" of 15th century Florence, and Rome, and the French and Germanic cities where Machiavelli traveled to represent Florence.

    Strauss may satisfy those inclined to engage in exercise in Talmudic argument, but Machiavelli was Italian, Florentine, and Roman; Dante was his constant companion; he was also conversant in Old and New Testament literature and, less extensively, with the relatively newly rediscovered Greek philosophers.

    Strauss does not understand Machiavelli's thoughts on religion because he fails to separate Niccolo's Christian, Danteian spirituality from his disgust with the corruption of the Roman Catholic papacy and institutional church.

    If you want intellectual showmanship and hair-splitting, Strauss on Machiavelli's your man. If you want to understand the soul of Niccolo Machiavelli and the complexities of political life in the Florence, Italy he lived in and loved, you can't do better than Maurizio Viroli.

    Machiavelli and Republicanism
    http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/history-ideas-and-intellectual-history/machiavelli-and-republicanism?format=PB

    Redeeming the Prince
    http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/681223

    For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism
    http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198293585.001.0001/acprof-9780198293583

    (Strauss twists Machiavelli's love of country into an evil act because it is not universal. Yet, as one reviewer noted of Strauss, "I would make the case that the best defense of Strauss lies in an understanding of Aristotle and Israel." https://www.amazon.com/German-Stranger-Strauss-National-Socialism/dp/0739147382 ) , @Pat Casey Steve weighed in on this a while back and made the point that what we have, what has been handed down to us, that probably is the esoteric stuff. I don't think he even mentioned in the piece how interesting it is that what we have of Aristotle seem to be lecture notes. I suspect that is just because: Aristotle taught Alexander---the teacher knew no felt need to live on as a writer like Plato did. One thing we can say about those lecture notes, we can pretty well imagine they were not written in his prime, hence we're still learning how much good stuff is there; if you know your stuff, you know as late as the late Richard Taylor that the philosopher was yet outdoing us moderns in a point he makes like an afterthought but could not matter more. But so anyways, what we have is the distilled Aristotle probably from his golden years; if we also had it in any other form, it might read comparatively mercilessly for being too esoteric. As we know him it is impossible to imagine Aristotle writing dialogues, debating other voices ; one need not name rivals when one has none and he was the King's philosopher. What you can't say is no he was being disorganized on purpose to be esoteric, right?

    But take Plato. I assume if you could read ancient Greek as well as Plato could, you would find many a double meaning at crucial turns but I really have no idea save the gut instinct that the man was an inspired writer when he wrote which is to say a poet. And what a poet does is let the muse speak and summon such nice lines as "The Beauty is not the Madness/ Though my errors and wrecks lie about me/and I am not a demigod, I cannot make it cohere." The errors that lie about him strewn about him as it were, they lie about how good he was when he was at his best. A tongue like a double-bladed sword says the Bible. I imagine some of Ezra Pound's radio rants need a second listen with less tense nerves; they say the Italians suspected he was transmitting code. Anyways. Imagine how much can be said for the stories we tell ourselves....how many former selves does any one wind up with? you have to ask your self.

    Scholasticism, well you could almost say that's all about no secret handshake shit. Make sure them key words get nailed down and no tricks or to the tower you got cause to go.

    Spinoza, oh we know exactly where his mystery lies. Edwin Curley said:

    "In responding to this objection, I think I had best begin by confessing candidly that in spite of many years of study, I still do not feel that I understand this part of the Ethics at all adequately. I feel the freedom to confess that, of course, because I also believe that no one else understands it adequately either"
    What objection? The one that says, nothing of the mind should remain eternal after the body has been destroyed if there is only one substance! We could have gone to grad school on this paper is what the man said, but first pay respects to what that meant to him personally, cause he probably escaped with his life when he did, but he knew his disciples would keep his mind alive. But seriously I should touch this up and send it somewhere:
    It must be said that the elegance of this deduction is striking. God's idea of the human body corresponds with the mind's idea of the human body. The crucial move that turns the correspondence into a startling claim is that God's idea expresses the essence of the body, while the mind's idea expresses the essence of the mind. Through the initial correspondence, God's eternal essence expressed as an idea of the body adopts the essence of the mind. Thus, when the body dies, something of the essence of the mind remains eternal. With that, Spinoza culminates his masterpiece.
    " Since what is conceived, with a certain eternal necessity, through God's essence itself, is nevertheless something, this something that pertains to the essence of the mind will necessarily be eternal." Besides being an Eternalist, Spinoza is also an Idealist. It fits then that he should leave something of the mind remaining eternally, rather than what a strict Eternalist would leave, that is, something of the mind and body. But recall that Spinoza's something that pertains to the essence of the mind is the idea of the body . In the final analysis, his system coheres.
    That's terribly poignant too, because it shows he went back to his roots in the end: "The soul will blame the body for its actions."

    Anyways I've spent myself and who wants to talk about Nietzsche, really. That guy was an antenna for a frequency that was broadcasting Noh drama directly into his soul while he wrote his Zarathustra, and I don't believe he ever came back from that---he had all the inside jokes he could tell to himself in perpetuity. But I gotta say, one time I ran into this guys blog who had let Nietzsche drive him insane, and he had comprehensively worked out to an absolute end the thesis his whole philosophy was to understand that a formal Matriarchy was what's good and here's why that's the necessity. If that is true its too hysterical to ever argue with no hint of mania. So I felt bad for the guy.

    But what the other guy said rings truest to me. And I'd just add that Paul Gottfried's observation that Strauss winds up treating a text a lot like the Deconstructions do does not entirely fail Strauss for me. The fundamental truth to them is something every one of us around can understand: these words we type, the ain't alive on quick lips, which is what gets some of us into more trouble than others.

    I definitely check out the book, but one must be cautious when resurrecting phantoms. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  120. anon says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:10 am GMT • 300 Words

    deHaven Smith is not that impressive on several counts.

    one example: book opens:

    "Although most Americans today reject the official (lone gunman) account of the Kennedy assassination, they also have doubts about conspiracy theories and those who believe them.
    This means the CIA program was successful, for its aim was not to sell the Warren Commission, but to sow uncertainty about the commission's critics. Today, people are not only uncertain, they have given up ever learning the truth. "

    At least one high-profile person and an entire community that supports him does not have doubts, has not given up.

    Cyril Wecht blasted holes in Arlen Specter's "one bullet" theory in 1965. He's still at it. In 2013, the fiftieth anniversary of JFK's assassination,

    "about 500 people gathered at Duquesne University for a JFK symposium sponsored by the university's Institute of Forensic Science and Law, which is named for Wecht. Appearances by Stone and a doctor who tended to Kennedy brought national attention.

    People sneered when they mentioned Specter's name or the single-bullet theory.

    Across the state, the Single Bullet exhibit opened on Oct. 21. It's the first exhibition in Philadelphia University's Arlen Specter Center for Public Policy. Willens, the former Kennedy aide, delivered a speech.

    The center's coordinator, Karen Albert, said he was looking forward to defending his conclusion on the 50th anniversary. " http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/5017529-74/wecht-commission-specter

    Smith did not even mention Wecht or Specter and the single-bullet theory in his book. The omission is important insofar as its inclusion would have demonstrated that for many years the populace has been aware of the dishonesty of the US government and some have been raising their voices against and continue to do so.

    That knowledge should give encouragement to activists such as those who demand accountability for Israel's attack on the USS Liberty and the deliberate killing of 34 US sailors and other personnel.

    (Specter has been useful to the deep state in other ways: he protected Zalman Shapiro, former head of NUMEC, from prosecution for his part in smuggling uranium to Israel. http://israellobby.org/numec/ 0

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  121. anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:18 am GMT • 100 Words @exiled off mainstreet I didn't notice Gleiwitz was mentioned in another posting before I mentioned it. I tend go along with you and suspect incompetence rather than purpose was the cause of the Pearl Harbor disaster, though the incompetence may have included failure to adequately warn those on the ground at Pearl Harbor. Personally, I don't back the "truther" version of the twin towers because that would have required a broader conspiracy than I think could have succeeded. My guess is that the neighboring building was destroyed as part of the cleanup effort. I do think, however, that the authorities knew something was up, didn't believe it could ever succeed and used it as a sort of Reichstag Fire incident to brush aside constitutional democracy in the US. I also suspect that the Mossad knew more than they let on. My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been far different. I suspect that the anthrax thing was more likely started by the yankee regime as a home-grown conspiracy.

    My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been far different.

    Joe Lieberman was Gore's running mate.
    Lieberman had the Patriot Act on a shelf waiting for an opportunity -

    While holding the chair of the "Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs," Lieberman introduced on October 11, 2001, Senate Bill 1534, to establish the US Department of Homeland Security.

    Anticipating the bill's certain passage, Lieberman gave himself automatic chairmanship after he changed the name of his committee to, "The Senate Committee of Homeland Security and Government Affairs."

    Since then, Lieberman has been the main force behind legislation such as:
    -1- The USA Patriot Act
    -2- Protect America Act
    -3- National Emergency Centers Establishment Act
    -4- The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation Act
    -5- The Terrorist Expatriation Act, and the proposed
    -6- Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act.

    • Agree: Bill Jones Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Bill Jones says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:40 am GMT • 100 Words @Wizard of Oz I have a problem with the idea of likeminded elites who all move in srep together.

    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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz I think that is a more illuminating approach than talking about elites. As Lenin very likely said "Who? What?". The devil is indeed in the details and in details you see priorities and trade offs. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Rurik says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:40 am GMT • 400 Words

    Thank you Mr. Unz, for this excellent- and circumspect and salient- article.

    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.

    I'll just add that from what I've glimmered, (I'm definitely no expert on Leo Strauss), Strauss' philosophy contained more than just a careful consideration of 'conspiracy theories' and how they should be handled, but that what he advocated was a small group of highly motivated elite zealots (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et al) who would not just use power to control the narrative vis-a-vis conspiracy theories, but more to the point, would be the men who would conspire to alter the realities that required a mocking of "conspiracy theories" in the first place.

    From what I understand, one of his motivating themes was that his acolytes would come to understand that they shouldn't be guided by trite, pedestrian notions of morality when being the agents of change in the world. And that rather, they should use his teachings as a way to see the world as exceptional men, who would boldly do things others might shrink from, out of hackneyed notions of probity.

    Perhaps the best quote I know of to describe Straussianism (as I understand it) was made by a man who wasn't one of his actual students, but who certainly would have been well acquainted and worked closely with others who were; Karl Rove, when speaking to an aid:

    "That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

    that quote for me, describes Straussianism to a T. And if so, certainty dovetails with what happened during the reign of Bush-the lesser. Especially with something as audacious as 911.

    That at least, is how I've seen it

    As for the control of the media, I think most of your readers are certainly aware of that particular conundrum and its consequences. It is literally impossible to be too cynical as regards our media and government and CIA and other shenanigans, IMHO.

    Thanks again sir.

    • Replies: @Pat Casey Nice job. You roped the quote that ran across my mind--- I swear these things are in the air. How do you say, the ghost of Leo Strauss was moving men to do what you can't pin on his memory? Well you said it and that settles it. Thank goodness. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  124. CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:43 am GMT @whorefinder No Oswald Hypothesis Denier has ever presented a falsifiable alternative hypothesis to Kennedy's murder.

    The Oswald Hypothesis---as subtly admitted by Oliver Stone---passed the who, what, when, where, why, and how test. It answered all the questions and was plausible according to physics, motive, means, and opportunity. The Deniers try things like "the pristine bullet" and "magic bullet" nonsense, but those criticisms don't stand up to criticism (for example, the bullet was not pristine at all, and the bullet's tragectory was not magic at all, but followed a predictable downward path through the elevated Kennedy to Connolly).

    But more tellingly---no alternative plausible falsifiable hypothesis has been offered. No who, what, when, where , why, and how. Lots of speculation and casting aspersions (LBJ! CIA! ), but no one offers a concrete hypothesis that could be tested or researched to see as plausible.

    If you have a falsifiable alternative theory to the Oswald Hypothesis that satisfies the five w's and h, please offer it here. Until you do so, the only plausible hypothesis is that Oswald acted alone.

    It's been more than 50 years people. Give us something besides that some people disliked Kennedy (all politicians have enemies) and "eye witnesses" who keep changing their stories.

    *Oh, and the KGB worked to spread Kennedy Conspiracy theories because they undermined faith in the U.S. government and took the heat off communists for the killing. They funded some of the conspiracy theorists and promoted them.

    Hey Whorefinder, are you one of Cass Sunstein's boys , by any chance.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:43 am GMT • 100 Words @The Alarmist I personally think they did land on the moon, but am paying devil's advocate here ....
    "Not to be arch, but, even with the repeater on the moon, what about the bounce echo from the tight-beam signal coming from Earth carrying the deceptive info? "
    First, you could transvert from one range to another, so an interested party would have know where to look for the reflection. You could uplink in another range of S-Band, or go lower to L-band if you don't mind a little faraday rotation. Your link-budget would be just sufficient to get a signal from the lunar repeater to Earth, but that would most likely not be enough enough for a full round-trip of the terrestrial signal. Most of your tight beam would still pass fairly wide abeam the moon, and that which was reflected back to Earth would be further degraded by libration fading.

    How do you get Astronauts bouncing and hammers falling in Slo-Mo? Film at 60fps, replay at 30. Ah, but you have to have a really good clean-room to keep dust off the film. Maybe that is why videotape technology took off in the early seventies ;)

    How do you get Astronauts bouncing and hammers falling in Slo-Mo?

    Yeah, the gravity effects are a BIG job. Just slo-mo-ing won't do it, because you have different curvature of falling profile, and acceleration of gravity is different because moon-mass is less (and non-linear ref 30fps v. 60fps.)

    There would also be additive propagation delay in the radio signals. Pure delay, too - no compensation would fix that in 1969.

    • Replies: @Anonymous https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. SolontoCroesus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:50 am GMT • 300 Words @Decius First, if you are at all interested in esotericism, I cannot recommend highly enough Philosophy Between the Lines by Meltzer. The only thing critical I can say about this book is that, if one is really an expert in one of the thinkers that Meltzer treats, one will read the passages on that thinker that Meltzer cites and say "So what? I've known that for years. He's shed no new light." Which is true. But irrelevant to what he's trying to do. The book presents an unassailable case that philosophy has been esoteric since Plato. Esotericism long predates Spinoza and has been discussed since ancient times. Strauss simply revived a concept that had been forgotten. Toland (who I am not that familiar with) wrote before esotericism as it were "lapsed." Strauss says that Goethe and Lessing were the last to write this way. When Strauss revived knowledge of esotericism in the late 1930s with the first Xenophon article, he was considered nuts.

    Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.

    I would recommend in addition Strauss's book on Spinoza and especially the much later preface that he wrote when he felt he finally understood Spinoza's esotericism.

    Yes, the Prince (and the Discourses , and Art of War , and Florentine Histories ) are esoteric. It's too complex to argue in a comment thread. Suffice it to say for now that the outrageous "kill that dude" teachings serve and exoteric purpose.

    Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.

    Nonsense.

    Maurizio Viroli has dedicated his life to scholarship on Machiavelli. He reads and understands The Prince (and Machiavelli's other works and life) in the context in which they were written, taking account of the finest details of Machiavelli's human, psychological, and spiritual evolution in the course of career and writing. Viroli walks in Niccolo's footsteps; like Machiavelli, he "puts on the garments" of 15th century Florence, and Rome, and the French and Germanic cities where Machiavelli traveled to represent Florence.

    Strauss may satisfy those inclined to engage in exercise in Talmudic argument, but Machiavelli was Italian, Florentine, and Roman; Dante was his constant companion; he was also conversant in Old and New Testament literature and, less extensively, with the relatively newly rediscovered Greek philosophers.

    Strauss does not understand Machiavelli's thoughts on religion because he fails to separate Niccolo's Christian, Danteian spirituality from his disgust with the corruption of the Roman Catholic papacy and institutional church.

    If you want intellectual showmanship and hair-splitting, Strauss on Machiavelli's your man. If you want to understand the soul of Niccolo Machiavelli and the complexities of political life in the Florence, Italy he lived in and loved, you can't do better than Maurizio Viroli.

    Machiavelli and Republicanism
    http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/history-ideas-and-intellectual-history/machiavelli-and-republicanism?format=PB

    Redeeming the Prince
    http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/681223

    For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism
    http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198293585.001.0001/acprof-9780198293583

    (Strauss twists Machiavelli's love of country into an evil act because it is not universal. Yet, as one reviewer noted of Strauss, "I would make the case that the best defense of Strauss lies in an understanding of Aristotle and Israel." https://www.amazon.com/German-Stranger-Strauss-National-Socialism/dp/0739147382 )

    • Replies: @Decius First, you are wrong that Strauss thinks Machiavelli's patriotism is in itself evil. Strauss says the exact opposite at several points. But he also says that recourse to patriotism does not in itself excuse Machiavelli's recommendations to do evil. Strauss himself comes up with the most persuasive justifications (which are higher than excuses) for Machiavelli's evil sayings. But to understand Strauss's arguments, you would have to read the book and spend a lot of time with it because it is hard.

    Viroli is a scholar I respect for a lot of reasons, but not for philosophic depth. The argument about "context" diminishes Machiavelli (and all great thinkers) by presupposing that their thought is time-bound or that they could not think past the horizon of their time. The greatest minds transcend their times and even create new times. There aren't very many such, but Nick was one. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  127. CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:50 am GMT @biz
    you are too quick to conflate 9/11 and the moon landings
    Actually, it was Unz himself who stated a while back that if we admit that one of them is possible, then all are possible, or something more or less to that effect.

    In an case, the 9/11 controlled demolition / missile / flight 93 is in a hangar in Cleveland stuff is just as implausible as faking the moon landings. Too many people and organizations and countries needing to be in on it, etc.

    biz, you obviously missed it. Bill Jones, above , debunked your argument even before you made it.

    • Replies: @biz lol, "The Mahattan Project was kept a secret."

    No it wasn't. Stalin knew about the Manhattan project before Truman did. Learn some history. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  128. Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 3:31 am GMT • 100 Words @Rurik Thank you Mr. Unz, for this excellent- and circumspect and salient- article.
    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.
    I'll just add that from what I've glimmered, (I'm definitely no expert on Leo Strauss), Strauss' philosophy contained more than just a careful consideration of 'conspiracy theories' and how they should be handled, but that what he advocated was a small group of highly motivated elite zealots (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et al) who would not just use power to control the narrative vis-a-vis conspiracy theories, but more to the point, would be the men who would conspire to alter the realities that required a mocking of "conspiracy theories" in the first place.

    From what I understand, one of his motivating themes was that his acolytes would come to understand that they shouldn't be guided by trite, pedestrian notions of morality when being the agents of change in the world. And that rather, they should use his teachings as a way to see the world as exceptional men, who would boldly do things others might shrink from, out of hackneyed notions of probity.

    Perhaps the best quote I know of to describe Straussianism (as I understand it) was made by a man who wasn't one of his actual students, but who certainly would have been well acquainted and worked closely with others who were; Karl Rove, when speaking to an aid:

    "That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

    that quote for me, describes Straussianism to a T. And if so, certainty dovetails with what happened during the reign of Bush-the lesser. Especially with something as audacious as 911.

    That at least, is how I've seen it...

    As for the control of the media, I think most of your readers are certainly aware of that particular conundrum and its consequences. It is literally impossible to be too cynical as regards our media and government and CIA and other shenanigans, IMHO.

    Thanks again sir.

    Nice job. You roped the quote that ran across my mind- I swear these things are in the air. How do you say, the ghost of Leo Strauss was moving men to do what you can't pin on his memory? Well you said it and that settles it. Thank goodness.

    • Replies: @Decius Wait, a quote from Rove that doesn't even mention Strauss explains everything about Strauss? Are you serious?

    I gather you just need a boogeyman and Strauss is the one you've selected. Or, more accurately, have allowed others to select for you. , @Rurik now this..

    Now, however, Europhysics Magazine, the respected publication of the European physics community, has published a report by four experts who say "the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition."


    http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/911-conspiracy-gets-support-from-physicists-study/

    .
    .

    Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.

    ~ Buddha


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

  129. Astuteobservor II says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 3:32 am GMT

    after snowden, every conspiracy theory got a 99% boost in credibility. he confirmed the big bad boogeymen watching and spying on us all.

    nothing else is impossible, nothing. every theory is now possible, everything.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  130. Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 3:55 am GMT @Pat Casey Nice job. You roped the quote that ran across my mind--- I swear these things are in the air. How do you say, the ghost of Leo Strauss was moving men to do what you can't pin on his memory? Well you said it and that settles it. Thank goodness.

    Wait, a quote from Rove that doesn't even mention Strauss explains everything about Strauss? Are you serious?

    I gather you just need a boogeyman and Strauss is the one you've selected. Or, more accurately, have allowed others to select for you.

    • Replies: @Pat Casey Don't miss my longer reply, in the cue, plus this one, but put the boogeyman business to bed and put your defenses down.... I can't say it any other way: I think the spirit of Leo Strauss may well have moved men to move mountains and mountains otherwise called federal bureaucracies and divisions of armies. It might explain not "everything" about Strauss but indeed whats essential about Strauss, which is that you are right, I suspect he was special. Step back for a second and forget that those Bush bastards were bastards and just estimate the nerve it takes to pull off 9/11 and then go into Afghanistan and Iraq. We can all at least agree, that's somthin. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 4:03 am GMT • 100 Words @SolontoCroesus
    Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.
    Nonsense.

    Maurizio Viroli has dedicated his life to scholarship on Machiavelli. He reads and understands The Prince (and Machiavelli's other works and life) in the context in which they were written, taking account of the finest details of Machiavelli's human, psychological, and spiritual evolution in the course of career and writing. Viroli walks in Niccolo's footsteps; like Machiavelli, he "puts on the garments" of 15th century Florence, and Rome, and the French and Germanic cities where Machiavelli traveled to represent Florence.

    Strauss may satisfy those inclined to engage in exercise in Talmudic argument, but Machiavelli was Italian, Florentine, and Roman; Dante was his constant companion; he was also conversant in Old and New Testament literature and, less extensively, with the relatively newly rediscovered Greek philosophers.

    Strauss does not understand Machiavelli's thoughts on religion because he fails to separate Niccolo's Christian, Danteian spirituality from his disgust with the corruption of the Roman Catholic papacy and institutional church.

    If you want intellectual showmanship and hair-splitting, Strauss on Machiavelli's your man. If you want to understand the soul of Niccolo Machiavelli and the complexities of political life in the Florence, Italy he lived in and loved, you can't do better than Maurizio Viroli.

    Machiavelli and Republicanism
    http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/history-ideas-and-intellectual-history/machiavelli-and-republicanism?format=PB

    Redeeming the Prince
    http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/681223

    For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism
    http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198293585.001.0001/acprof-9780198293583

    (Strauss twists Machiavelli's love of country into an evil act because it is not universal. Yet, as one reviewer noted of Strauss, "I would make the case that the best defense of Strauss lies in an understanding of Aristotle and Israel." https://www.amazon.com/German-Stranger-Strauss-National-Socialism/dp/0739147382 )

    First, you are wrong that Strauss thinks Machiavelli's patriotism is in itself evil. Strauss says the exact opposite at several points. But he also says that recourse to patriotism does not in itself excuse Machiavelli's recommendations to do evil. Strauss himself comes up with the most persuasive justifications (which are higher than excuses) for Machiavelli's evil sayings. But to understand Strauss's arguments, you would have to read the book and spend a lot of time with it because it is hard.

    Viroli is a scholar I respect for a lot of reasons, but not for philosophic depth. The argument about "context" diminishes Machiavelli (and all great thinkers) by presupposing that their thought is time-bound or that they could not think past the horizon of their time. The greatest minds transcend their times and even create new times. There aren't very many such, but Nick was one.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 4:07 am GMT • 200 Words @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.

    If Nazis didn't exist zionists would have to invent them - or maybe they did. Nuland's use of Nazis in Ukraine is sure making it look more and more likely that Hitler was an Osama bin-Laden like creation of Jews and/or the Roosevelt admin.

    1. The British were past masters of all sorts of dirty tricks. Moshe Dayan learned about house demolitions from the British when they were in charge of Mandate Palestine - pre-1939. http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.657167

    2. Jews in Poland were active participants in killing fellow Poles; from the late 1920s into the mid-1930s Jews in Soviet participated in serious numbers in Stalin's slaughter of several million Russians, Ukrainians, Poles. Some of the killed were Jewish. They didn't need Germans to teach them how to kill on a mass scale, Trotsky, Lenin & Stalin were able tutors.

    3. By early in 1938 The Haganeh had created Mossad al Aliyeh-bet - zionists planted in Germany and other European cities to shepherd Jews out of their home countries and into Palestine. Francis Nicosia writes about it in Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. pyrrhus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 5:37 am GMT

    The CIA's Project Mockingbird had all the network news anchors using the words "conspiracy theory" like the brainless parrots that they were. And Americans remain well brainwashed, although it's actually hard to get anything significant done without a "conspiracy."

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  134. Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 5:37 am GMT • 1,000 Words @Decius First, if you are at all interested in esotericism, I cannot recommend highly enough Philosophy Between the Lines by Meltzer. The only thing critical I can say about this book is that, if one is really an expert in one of the thinkers that Meltzer treats, one will read the passages on that thinker that Meltzer cites and say "So what? I've known that for years. He's shed no new light." Which is true. But irrelevant to what he's trying to do. The book presents an unassailable case that philosophy has been esoteric since Plato. Esotericism long predates Spinoza and has been discussed since ancient times. Strauss simply revived a concept that had been forgotten. Toland (who I am not that familiar with) wrote before esotericism as it were "lapsed." Strauss says that Goethe and Lessing were the last to write this way. When Strauss revived knowledge of esotericism in the late 1930s with the first Xenophon article, he was considered nuts.

    Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.

    I would recommend in addition Strauss's book on Spinoza and especially the much later preface that he wrote when he felt he finally understood Spinoza's esotericism.

    Yes, the Prince (and the Discourses , and Art of War , and Florentine Histories ) are esoteric. It's too complex to argue in a comment thread. Suffice it to say for now that the outrageous "kill that dude" teachings serve and exoteric purpose.

    Steve weighed in on this a while back and made the point that what we have, what has been handed down to us, that probably is the esoteric stuff. I don't think he even mentioned in the piece how interesting it is that what we have of Aristotle seem to be lecture notes. I suspect that is just because: Aristotle taught Alexander-the teacher knew no felt need to live on as a writer like Plato did. One thing we can say about those lecture notes, we can pretty well imagine they were not written in his prime, hence we're still learning how much good stuff is there; if you know your stuff, you know as late as the late Richard Taylor that the philosopher was yet outdoing us moderns in a point he makes like an afterthought but could not matter more. But so anyways, what we have is the distilled Aristotle probably from his golden years; if we also had it in any other form, it might read comparatively mercilessly for being too esoteric. As we know him it is impossible to imagine Aristotle writing dialogues, debating other voices ; one need not name rivals when one has none and he was the King's philosopher. What you can't say is no he was being disorganized on purpose to be esoteric, right?

    But take Plato. I assume if you could read ancient Greek as well as Plato could, you would find many a double meaning at crucial turns but I really have no idea save the gut instinct that the man was an inspired writer when he wrote which is to say a poet. And what a poet does is let the muse speak and summon such nice lines as "The Beauty is not the Madness/ Though my errors and wrecks lie about me/and I am not a demigod, I cannot make it cohere." The errors that lie about him strewn about him as it were, they lie about how good he was when he was at his best. A tongue like a double-bladed sword says the Bible. I imagine some of Ezra Pound's radio rants need a second listen with less tense nerves; they say the Italians suspected he was transmitting code. Anyways. Imagine how much can be said for the stories we tell ourselves .how many former selves does any one wind up with? you have to ask your self.

    Scholasticism, well you could almost say that's all about no secret handshake shit. Make sure them key words get nailed down and no tricks or to the tower you got cause to go.

    Spinoza, oh we know exactly where his mystery lies. Edwin Curley said:

    "In responding to this objection, I think I had best begin by confessing candidly that in spite of many years of study, I still do not feel that I understand this part of the Ethics at all adequately. I feel the freedom to confess that, of course, because I also believe that no one else understands it adequately either"

    What objection? The one that says, nothing of the mind should remain eternal after the body has been destroyed if there is only one substance! We could have gone to grad school on this paper is what the man said, but first pay respects to what that meant to him personally, cause he probably escaped with his life when he did, but he knew his disciples would keep his mind alive. But seriously I should touch this up and send it somewhere:

    It must be said that the elegance of this deduction is striking. God's idea of the human body corresponds with the mind's idea of the human body. The crucial move that turns the correspondence into a startling claim is that God's idea expresses the essence of the body, while the mind's idea expresses the essence of the mind. Through the initial correspondence, God's eternal essence expressed as an idea of the body adopts the essence of the mind. Thus, when the body dies, something of the essence of the mind remains eternal. With that, Spinoza culminates his masterpiece.

    " Since what is conceived, with a certain eternal necessity, through God's essence itself, is nevertheless something, this something that pertains to the essence of the mind will necessarily be eternal." Besides being an Eternalist, Spinoza is also an Idealist. It fits then that he should leave something of the mind remaining eternally, rather than what a strict Eternalist would leave, that is, something of the mind and body. But recall that Spinoza's something that pertains to the essence of the mind is the idea of the body . In the final analysis, his system coheres.

    That's terribly poignant too, because it shows he went back to his roots in the end: "The soul will blame the body for its actions."

    Anyways I've spent myself and who wants to talk about Nietzsche, really. That guy was an antenna for a frequency that was broadcasting Noh drama directly into his soul while he wrote his Zarathustra, and I don't believe he ever came back from that-he had all the inside jokes he could tell to himself in perpetuity. But I gotta say, one time I ran into this guys blog who had let Nietzsche drive him insane, and he had comprehensively worked out to an absolute end the thesis his whole philosophy was to understand that a formal Matriarchy was what's good and here's why that's the necessity. If that is true its too hysterical to ever argue with no hint of mania. So I felt bad for the guy.

    But what the other guy said rings truest to me. And I'd just add that Paul Gottfried's observation that Strauss winds up treating a text a lot like the Deconstructions do does not entirely fail Strauss for me. The fundamental truth to them is something every one of us around can understand: these words we type, the ain't alive on quick lips, which is what gets some of us into more trouble than others.

    I definitely check out the book, but one must be cautious when resurrecting phantoms.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 6:18 am GMT • 100 Words @Decius Wait, a quote from Rove that doesn't even mention Strauss explains everything about Strauss? Are you serious?

    I gather you just need a boogeyman and Strauss is the one you've selected. Or, more accurately, have allowed others to select for you.

    Don't miss my longer reply, in the cue, plus this one, but put the boogeyman business to bed and put your defenses down . I can't say it any other way: I think the spirit of Leo Strauss may well have moved men to move mountains and mountains otherwise called federal bureaucracies and divisions of armies. It might explain not "everything" about Strauss but indeed whats essential about Strauss, which is that you are right, I suspect he was special. Step back for a second and forget that those Bush bastards were bastards and just estimate the nerve it takes to pull off 9/11 and then go into Afghanistan and Iraq. We can all at least agree, that's somthin.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. 5371 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 6:20 am GMT @Decius At any rate it's sort of absurd to watch you people chase your tails. All that you "know" or think you know is that Strauss is bad. But Schmitt is good. But Strauss is derivative of Schmitt. Doesn't that make Strauss good, or Schmitt bad?

    Schmitt is famous for arguing in favor of the essential particularity of politics--i.e., against alleged neocon universalism. So if Strauss is derivative of Schmitt, how can he be a neocon universalist?

    Strauss in fact agrees with Schmitt on the essential particularity of politics and says so, but finds a deeper source, with deeper arguments, in Plato. Schmitt admitted that his own attempt to fortify his particularism was build on the quick-sandy foundation of modern rationalism, which Strauss taught him to see through.

    When you can pin Strauss down to a definite meaning, it is false, banal or both. He is usually too obfuscatory to be pinned down. Schmitt is easy to understand and shows you true things you had not thought of before.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. dismasdolben says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 6:23 am GMT • 200 Words

    My favourite historical conspiracy is the so-called "Gunpowder Plot," which is still, despite all of the evidence that has been discovered in more modern times, represented in history books, as being exclusively the work of disgruntled Catholic noblemen and their Jesuit confessors. It was actually a government projection of the Cecil ministry, completely riddled with moles who nurtured it along, right up until the point when it could be revealed to the public for maximum political effect, and to the King, so that he would become more terrorified, and, thus, more dependent upon the Cecils and their "constitutionalist" Puritan proteges. The "evidence" has, indeed, always been in plain sight, and it has been dealt with in numerous books, such as The Gunpowder Plot, Faith and Treason , by Antonia Fraser, and another book, entitled "God's Secret Agents,' but, still, to this day, the myth of conspiring priests is still propagated in atavistic anti-Catholic British history.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  138. 5371 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 6:31 am GMT @Decius Schmitt disagreed with you.

    This way of arguing, too, is redolent of an academic personality cult, not of actual scholarship.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 7:19 am GMT @Wizard of Oz Fascinating. A reminder that one should five lives lived to 120 so one can lots of stories right....

    Oops! Sorry but I'm sure the typis were obvious.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 7:27 am GMT • 100 Words @whorefinder No Oswald Hypothesis Denier has ever presented a falsifiable alternative hypothesis to Kennedy's murder.

    The Oswald Hypothesis---as subtly admitted by Oliver Stone---passed the who, what, when, where, why, and how test. It answered all the questions and was plausible according to physics, motive, means, and opportunity. The Deniers try things like "the pristine bullet" and "magic bullet" nonsense, but those criticisms don't stand up to criticism (for example, the bullet was not pristine at all, and the bullet's tragectory was not magic at all, but followed a predictable downward path through the elevated Kennedy to Connolly).

    But more tellingly---no alternative plausible falsifiable hypothesis has been offered. No who, what, when, where , why, and how. Lots of speculation and casting aspersions (LBJ! CIA! ), but no one offers a concrete hypothesis that could be tested or researched to see as plausible.

    If you have a falsifiable alternative theory to the Oswald Hypothesis that satisfies the five w's and h, please offer it here. Until you do so, the only plausible hypothesis is that Oswald acted alone.

    It's been more than 50 years people. Give us something besides that some people disliked Kennedy (all politicians have enemies) and "eye witnesses" who keep changing their stories.

    *Oh, and the KGB worked to spread Kennedy Conspiracy theories because they undermined faith in the U.S. government and took the heat off communists for the killing. They funded some of the conspiracy theorists and promoted them.

    I ask only because you may have the JFK assassination stuff well organised in your head and up to date. What do you make of the update by Colin McLaren on the humanly plausible conspiracy theory that the bullet which killed Kennedy was fired accidentally by a Secret Service man standing in the car behind? Are there any knock down arguments against it? Or big holes?

    • Replies: @whorefinder The argument has surface plausibility merit, and would seem to resolve a lot of the problems Oswald Deniers have with Kennedy's head movement. However, I haven't heard the physics argument about it, or any other evidence. So I'm neutral.

    That said, it isn't a popular theory because it offers nothing nefarious---just the SS screwing up big time. So even if it were true---and I'm open to it being true---the Oswald Deniers are far too invested in making this a deliberate mass-government coverup to listen. , @CanSpeccy I love the idea that JFK was killed by a stray bullet accidentally fired by a secret service agent. It's so obvious once the truth has been pointed out.

    Probably the same sort of balls-up explains 9/11. You know, missiles intended to shoot down simulated highjacked planes in a drill on 9/11 accidentally wamming into the Pentagon and Twin Towers.

    Then Norad had to make up that stuff about 19 hijackers and Bin Laden to cover their arse. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  141. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 7:42 am GMT • 100 Words @Miro23 Being smart has nothing to do with it.

    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).

    I see the biggest problem about a conspiratorial explanation for the WTC 7 collapse is motive. How does it make sense for those who wanted the big splash that hitting buildings 1 and 2 would give? The other major difficulty is the video footage of fires burning all day which had to have heated the steel and therefore potentially weakened it to a critical point. Where's the mystery?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy There must be hundreds of millions of words accessible on the Internet discussing the collapse of WTC Building 7. Why then foul up this discussion with the reiteration of arguments that anyone with an interest in the specifics of 9/11 will already know or can find out elsewhere? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. moneta says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 7:44 am GMT • 200 Words

    The biggest conpiracy, which most fail understand, is that the reason that there is all of economic termoil and wars, is due to one reason and one reason only. There is no money and what we use for transactions is the invertion of money, created by an entry of a computer. Its main purpose is to make the issuers rich and everyone else in debt to them..Countries who don't want to go into their debt become enemies and are villified. This illusion is reinforced by films, media. Tax authorities. the government.
    THIS IS THE BIGGEST CONSPIRACY on which all of the others are constructed. Including the socialist satanist society built upon it. To make it work markets have to be manipulated, which they all are.
    Get rid of money and you get rid of god. liberty, personal property and everything else of value because all values are based on nominal debt and this debt is not repayable because it has to be borrowed to be repayed and the method of repayment doesnt exist. Fereral reserve notes are counterfieted to create debt.

    • Replies: @AnotherLover Agree.

    Take that weird moderation quirk! Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

  143. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 7:51 am GMT @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.

    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?

    • Replies: @AnotherLover I think dismissing intuition is for suckers. What successful businessman would offer such advice? Intuition assembles all the information available to the organism, and it is rarely wrong in my experience. I appreciate when people are willing to offer their gut reaction to an event, especially knowing they are doing so in a society which trains its members to pounce on them that would have the temerity to do so.

    Present company excluded, of course... Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  144. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 7:59 am GMT • 100 Words @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.

    So, there is a counter example – an exception???

    Actually not such a good case. It was wartime in a pre Internet era and keeping their mouths shut was emphasised as a patriotic duty for everyone. The work was carried out at remote locations with vast resources behind it. The work was so new and esoteric that the best outsiders might have managed was that something was going on that they didn't understand. And of course it wasn't kept secret from our Soviet allies thanks to their spies.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:20 am GMT @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.

    I think that is a more illuminating approach than talking about elites. As Lenin very likely said "Who? What?". The devil is indeed in the details and in details you see priorities and trade offs.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Robbie says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:22 am GMT • 900 Words @whorefinder No Oswald Hypothesis Denier has ever presented a falsifiable alternative hypothesis to Kennedy's murder.

    The Oswald Hypothesis---as subtly admitted by Oliver Stone---passed the who, what, when, where, why, and how test. It answered all the questions and was plausible according to physics, motive, means, and opportunity. The Deniers try things like "the pristine bullet" and "magic bullet" nonsense, but those criticisms don't stand up to criticism (for example, the bullet was not pristine at all, and the bullet's tragectory was not magic at all, but followed a predictable downward path through the elevated Kennedy to Connolly).

    But more tellingly---no alternative plausible falsifiable hypothesis has been offered. No who, what, when, where , why, and how. Lots of speculation and casting aspersions (LBJ! CIA! ), but no one offers a concrete hypothesis that could be tested or researched to see as plausible.

    If you have a falsifiable alternative theory to the Oswald Hypothesis that satisfies the five w's and h, please offer it here. Until you do so, the only plausible hypothesis is that Oswald acted alone.

    It's been more than 50 years people. Give us something besides that some people disliked Kennedy (all politicians have enemies) and "eye witnesses" who keep changing their stories.

    *Oh, and the KGB worked to spread Kennedy Conspiracy theories because they undermined faith in the U.S. government and took the heat off communists for the killing. They funded some of the conspiracy theorists and promoted them.

    Oswald never fired a shot! A hidden witness for over 35 years had proof positive that Oswald was never on the sixth floor, and therefore couldn't be a shooter. Barry Ernest has found Victoria Adams, a witness to Kennedy's murder, on the fourth floor back staircase of the TSBD. She testified to the Warren Commission that she and her co-worker, Sandra Styles saw nobody come down the stairs, after she heard the final shots. Also with them was her supervisor, Dorothy Garner, making three witnesses (or non-witnesses in this case) that totally destroy the lone nut idea that Oswald was doing any shooting there. Adams was badgered and she felt threatened by the Warren Commission and fearing for her life, vanished for decades until Barry Ernest found her.

    So, that ends and totally disproves for all time the formerly plausible hypothesis (theory) that Oswald killed Kennedy.

    The Girl on the Stairs: The Search for a Missing Witness to the JFK Assassination by Barry Ernest (hardcover) April 2, 2013
    https://www.amazon.com/Girl-Stairs-Missing-Witness-Assassination/dp/1455617830

    http://garyrevel.com/jfk/girlonstairs.html
    "The Bob Wilson Interview with Author Barry Ernest 'The Girl on the Stairs: The Search for a Missing Witness to the JFK Assassination' "
    Feb. 18, 2014 (New York, NY)

    #7

    "There is no evidence that definitively places Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom as the shots were being fired. If you believe what Oswald is quoted as telling police during his interrogation sessions (12 hours that went unrecorded and without a stenographer being present), he was eating his lunch in the first-floor domino room when the shots occurred, and then went to the second floor to purchase a drink. This is perhaps why Vicki Adams did not see him on the stairs, why he was so calm during the lunchroom confrontation, and why [Officer Marrion] Baker first described Oswald as entering the lunchroom from a direction other than the back staircase. Certainly Vicki Adams saying she was on the stairs during this critical period presented an obvious problem to the Warren Commission's scenario, which might explain why she was the only person excluded from time tests regarding Oswald's escape, and why corroborating witnesses to her story were ignored."

    #13

    "Lee Harvey Oswald was labeled as a loner, and malcontent. From what you have learned of him, can you describe a bit about who he seems to have actually been?

    He was definitely an odd fellow. But he was also smart, capable, for instance, of beating others more advanced than he was at chess and, if you believe the official record, able to teach himself Russian, one of the most challenging languages to learn, especially on your own. He liked the opera and was a vociferous reader, knowledgeable in a lot of subjects. His actions in both his military and civilian lives seem consistent with someone having a far deeper complexity than what we have been told. Oh, and he was also a rather poor shot!"

    As for the pejorative term conspiracy theory , that was conjured up by the CIA in 1964, to counter the growing threat to the insiders' desire to promote the sole assassin idea, discredit doubters, and shut off debate. https://projectunspeakable.com/conspiracy-theory-invention-of-cia and http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html

    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0292757697

    "In 2013 Professor Lance Dehaven-Smith in a peer-reviewed book published by the University of Texas Press showed that the term "conspiracy theory" was developed by the CIA as a means of undercutting critics of the Warren Commission's report that President Kennedy was killed by Oswald. The use of this term was heavily promoted in the media by the CIA.

    It is ironic that the American left is a major enforcer of the CIA's strategy to shut up skeptics by branding them conspiracy theorists."

    The public has never believed the official story that Oswald acted alone ever since the first Gallup Poll was taken in early Dec. 1963, and continuing to this very day.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
    "Majority in U.S. Still Believe JFK Killed in a Conspiracy" by Art Swift (Nov. 15, 2013)

    Dec. 1963: 52% Conspiracy, 29% One man
    1976: 81% Conspiracy, 11% One man
    1983: 74% Conspiracy, 11% One man
    1992: 77% Conspiracy, 10% One man
    2001: 81% Conspiracy, 13% One man
    2003: 75% Conspiracy, 19% One man
    2013: 61% Conspiracy, 30% One man

    http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-marksman-sharpshooter

    " According to his Marine score card (Commission Exhibit 239), Oswald was tested twice:

    In December 1956, after "a very intensive 3 weeks' training period" (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.11, p.302), Oswald scored 212: two marks above the minimum for a 'sharpshooter'.

    In May 1959, he scored 191: one mark above the minimum for a 'marksman'.

    " Colonel Allison Folsom interpreted the results for the Warren Commission:
    "The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application of the instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified at least as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor "shot" and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good "shot".(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, pp.17f)

    Folsom agreed with his (not her) questioner that Oswald "was not a particularly outstanding shot" (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.8, p.311)."

    Phlilip F. Nelson's hardcover 2011 book, a fascinating insight into LBJ's warped and sociopathic (also suffering from bi-polar disorder) personality hidden from the public, 1960-2011,

    LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination
    https://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Mastermind-Assassination-Phillip-Nelson/dp/1616083778

    His 2013 paperback update:
    https://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Mastermind-Assassination-Phillip-Nelson/dp/1620876108

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Old fogey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:28 am GMT @Laurel The best strategy is to foster implausible conspiracy theories to create a cloud of disinformation. This technique was used very effectively after 9/11, such that it's very hard to discuss a coverup without being labeled a truther.

    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.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Gene Tuttle says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 9:29 am GMT • 100 Words @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.

    I did not say it was impossible for Americans to keep secrets, just "difficult."

    The Manhattan Project was in a bygone era - one in which near total war prevailed. Yet even in that case, the Soviets knew early on what was going on. And stories appeared in the US press early on posing prying questions about Los Alamos, a "forbidden city" where there were reports of "ordnance and explosives" being developed and "tremendous explosions have been heard."
    http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/1944-Cleveland-Press-Forbidden-City.pdf

    Main point however, is that even when conspiracies become obvious they are often largely ignored.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. biz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 12:11 pm GMT @CanSpeccy biz, you obviously missed it. Bill Jones, above , debunked your argument even before you made it.

    lol, "The Mahattan Project was kept a secret."

    No it wasn't. Stalin knew about the Manhattan project before Truman did. Learn some history.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    lol, "The Mahattan Project was kept a secret."

    No it wasn't. Stalin knew about the Manhattan project before Truman did. Learn some history.

    Your point misses the point. Putin probably knows as much or more about the mechanics of 9/11 than Stalin knew about the mechanics of the atom bomb and the Manhattan Project. But the issue is public knowledge, not what some individuals may know or have known. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Moi says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:07 pm GMT • 100 Words @Rehmat 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/

    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 .

    • Replies: @Rehmat Without GAS CHAMBERS the SIX MILLION DIED Holy COW becomes a HOUSE OF CARDS.

    On June 29, 2016, Boston-based publishing company Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) announced that it will publish Adolf Hitler's 'antisemite' book Mein Kampf to fund needy Jewish survivors of Nazi era.

    "The proceeds from sale of Mein Kampf will be donated to Jewish Family & Children's Service of Greater Boston," said Andrew Russell, the publisher's director of corporate social responsibility.

    The publisher had been donating money to organizations that combat anti-Semitism since 2000. Since publication of Mein Kampf is banned in France, the job was given to HMH. The publication of the book was opposed by several Jewish groups as result of company's recent announcement that in the future, it will provide funds to some non-Jewish NGOs. HMH caved-in to Jewish pressure and decided to bribe them by donating proceeds from the book to the 'evergreen' Holocaust Industry.

    In September 2001, the company filed a law suit in a New York court against Jews for Jesus, accusing the pro-Israel Evangelical group of infringing the company's copyright on its popular children's storybook character, Curious George, which the company had been publishing for 70 years.

    Interestingly, HMH is a subsidiary of Vivendi Universal, a multinational mass media company in Paris, whose CEO is Arnaud de Puyfontaine (Jewish).

    By now, hundreds of millions people around the world including some honest Jews know that Holocaust has become a tool of the Organized Jewry to rob western nations and individuals to nurse Israel's military machine. Germans and the 65 million American Evangelists are the biggest suckers of this Zionist Mafia. Organized Jewry has sucked over $93 billion from German taxpayers since the 1960s.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/07/02/hitlers-mein-kampf-to-fund-holocaust-industry/ Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  151. Alfred1860 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:51 pm GMT • 100 Words

    I find it quite amusing how, in an article supporting of the existence of conspiracy theories, so many comments consist of hurling insults at people making skeptical comments about what are obviously very sacred cows.

    People need to remember than by definition, the ratio of what you don't know to what you do know is infinity to one. Be more open minded.

    • Replies: @NosytheDuke "They shall find it difficult, they who have taken authority as truth rather than truth for authority".

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

  152. Some Important Historical Events Had Hidden Causes | We Seek the Truth! says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:41 pm GMT

    [ ] Read the Whole Article [ ]

  153. dahoit says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 3:13 pm GMT • 100 Words @Rehmat 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/

    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 This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. dahoit says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 3:21 pm GMT @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.

    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
  155. CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 3:22 pm GMT @Wizard of Oz I see the biggest problem about a conspiratorial explanation for the WTC 7 collapse is motive. How does it make sense for those who wanted the big splash that hitting buildings 1 and 2 would give? The other major difficulty is the video footage of fires burning all day which had to have heated the steel and therefore potentially weakened it to a critical point. Where's the mystery?

    There must be hundreds of millions of words accessible on the Internet discussing the collapse of WTC Building 7. Why then foul up this discussion with the reiteration of arguments that anyone with an interest in the specifics of 9/11 will already know or can find out elsewhere?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy But if you really want a short, clear, definitive, irrefutable and conclusive debunking of 9/11 Truther theories here it is :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98 , @Wizard of Oz And why doesn't that apply precisely to just about everything you have posted and how come you can't see it - or think you can get away with others not noticing?

    And where have you complained about the constant reiteration of the symmetrical fall alleged impossibility, the particles of thermite, the steel couldn't have been melted nonsense (it wasn't melting that was the point), the forewarning to the BBC and, not least, the failure to account for the videos of the fires burning all day in WTC 7 and what that could have resulted in.

    My particular analysis of motive I have neither seen emphasised by anyone else nor answered on UR at all. Have you? Or seen it dealt with elsewhere as you imply?

    As it happens there is now an exception. Just about the first UR commenter to doubt something like the official 9/11 story that has not only a respectably functioning intellect but has deployed it on the issue. See posts by CalDre on this thread and my conversation with him.

    Acttually there is indeed a question of motive on WTC 7 (if it was demolished by explosives) left well unanswered by anything but the supposition that there was something within that needed to be destroyed of which there were no copies. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  156. CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 3:29 pm GMT • 100 Words @biz lol, "The Mahattan Project was kept a secret."

    No it wasn't. Stalin knew about the Manhattan project before Truman did. Learn some history.

    lol, "The Mahattan Project was kept a secret."

    No it wasn't. Stalin knew about the Manhattan project before Truman did. Learn some history.

    Your point misses the point. Putin probably knows as much or more about the mechanics of 9/11 than Stalin knew about the mechanics of the atom bomb and the Manhattan Project. But the issue is public knowledge, not what some individuals may know or have known.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. dahoit says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 4:05 pm GMT • 100 Words @Decius What is a liberal? That's not a troll question. Strauss was above all a Socratic and Socratic philosophy begins with "what is" questions. One of Strauss's books is entitled Liberalism Ancient and Modern .

    Strauss was apparently a liberal in the US context in that he mostly voted for Dems. He also wrote one acerbically critical letter to National Review.

    However, a mid-20th-century American liberal may have been many things, but unpatriotic or nationalistic they were not. When liberalism turned with McGovern, Strauss looked elsewhere, and then died a year later, so we don't know how his political outlook would, or would not, have changed longer term. But at least in the 40s-60s, he was quite OK with Cold War American liberals. That's perfectly consistent with the nationalist sentiment expressed in the letter to Lowith. Also, Strauss was appalled by the dissoluteness of Weimar--and would become appalled by the dissoluteness of the late 1960s. But America prior was not yet dissolute. And he was appalled by Weimar's weakness. But America pre-Vietnam was not weak. Again, perfectly consistent with the letter.

    Strauss supported the Cold War because he thought the USSR was a real threat in the near term and because he feared, on a higher plane, the imposition of "the universal and homogenous state." He was opposed to that, whereas those to his left were for it. So was he conservative?

    Strauss transcends all these distinctions. That's not to say that they are meaningless. Indeed, he would be the first to say that they are meaningful. But, like Tocqueville, Strauss aimed to see not differently but further than the parties.

    Liberals used to say,I might not agree with what you say,but I'll defend you right to say it.
    Today they want to implant Citizenchips.
    Moon landings a hoax?I doubt that,but does it matter to today's terrible times other than a sign of American dominance in space race propaganda?
    Today we send up zionist satellites(when they don't explode) and fund their citizens efforts in militarization of space that threatens all,including US.
    Unbelievable but true.

    • Replies: @utu "Today we send up zionist satellites(when they don't explode) and fund their citizens efforts in militarization of space that threatens all,including US." - Few days before that failed launch Zuckerberg on NPR was talking much about FB in Africa and providing internet. I was wondering what else was on this payload? How many satellites Israel already has? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. whorefinder says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 4:45 pm GMT • 100 Words @Wizard of Oz I ask only because you may have the JFK assassination stuff well organised in your head and up to date. What do you make of the update by Colin McLaren on the humanly plausible conspiracy theory that the bullet which killed Kennedy was fired accidentally by a Secret Service man standing in the car behind? Are there any knock down arguments against it? Or big holes?

    The argument has surface plausibility merit, and would seem to resolve a lot of the problems Oswald Deniers have with Kennedy's head movement. However, I haven't heard the physics argument about it, or any other evidence. So I'm neutral.

    That said, it isn't a popular theory because it offers nothing nefarious-just the SS screwing up big time. So even if it were true-and I'm open to it being true-the Oswald Deniers are far too invested in making this a deliberate mass-government coverup to listen.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Rurik says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 4:51 pm GMT • 100 Words @Pat Casey Nice job. You roped the quote that ran across my mind--- I swear these things are in the air. How do you say, the ghost of Leo Strauss was moving men to do what you can't pin on his memory? Well you said it and that settles it. Thank goodness.

    now this..

    Now, however, Europhysics Magazine, the respected publication of the European physics community, has published a report by four experts who say "the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition."

    http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/911-conspiracy-gets-support-from-physicists-study/

    .
    .

    Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.

    ~ Buddha

    • Replies: @El Dato Pretty weird that 28 pages have had to be sat on. Maybe someone DIDN'T tell the Saudis that they didn't need to go all Allah Uakbar (as they were planning to since the lat 80s actually) as we were ready to blow shit up anyway? I dunno. Missing of memos can occur. , @CanSpeccy
    Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.

    ~ Buddha

    That was before the mainstream media Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. dahoit says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 4:52 pm GMT • 100 Words @exiled off mainstreet I didn't notice Gleiwitz was mentioned in another posting before I mentioned it. I tend go along with you and suspect incompetence rather than purpose was the cause of the Pearl Harbor disaster, though the incompetence may have included failure to adequately warn those on the ground at Pearl Harbor. Personally, I don't back the "truther" version of the twin towers because that would have required a broader conspiracy than I think could have succeeded. My guess is that the neighboring building was destroyed as part of the cleanup effort. I do think, however, that the authorities knew something was up, didn't believe it could ever succeed and used it as a sort of Reichstag Fire incident to brush aside constitutional democracy in the US. I also suspect that the Mossad knew more than they let on. My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been far different. I suspect that the anthrax thing was more likely started by the yankee regime as a home-grown conspiracy.

    Gore chose a likudnik as VP.Anyone thinks the response to 9-11 would have significantly different under those 2 needs further education.
    I notice the Wiz always deflects Israeli involvement.Of course they were aware,the dancing Israelis knew it was a terror attack by dancing before the 2nd plane hit.
    And what govt has been the only beneficiary of 9-11?
    If one can't see that answer,they have been ziocained and lobotomized.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 5:32 pm GMT @CanSpeccy There must be hundreds of millions of words accessible on the Internet discussing the collapse of WTC Building 7. Why then foul up this discussion with the reiteration of arguments that anyone with an interest in the specifics of 9/11 will already know or can find out elsewhere?

    But if you really want a short, clear, definitive, irrefutable and conclusive debunking of 9/11 Truther theories here it is :

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II wow, that video should be mandatory for every american. , @Wizard of Oz I love it! , @I. MALLIKARJUNA SHARMA What do you mean by debunking. It is in fact concisely and clearly explaining 9/11 Truth theories castigated as conspiracy theories by the criminal rulers. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 5:35 pm GMT • 100 Words @dahoit Liberals used to say,I might not agree with what you say,but I'll defend you right to say it.
    Today they want to implant Citizenchips.
    Moon landings a hoax?I doubt that,but does it matter to today's terrible times other than a sign of American dominance in space race propaganda?
    Today we send up zionist satellites(when they don't explode) and fund their citizens efforts in militarization of space that threatens all,including US.
    Unbelievable but true.

    "Today we send up zionist satellites(when they don't explode) and fund their citizens efforts in militarization of space that threatens all,including US." – Few days before that failed launch Zuckerberg on NPR was talking much about FB in Africa and providing internet. I was wondering what else was on this payload? How many satellites Israel already has?

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. LondonBob says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 5:39 pm GMT @Paul Jolliffe 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

    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 This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. LondonBob says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 5:51 pm GMT @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.

    Not forgetting the Manchurian Incident, staging events to justify a war is nothing new.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Abraham says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 6:28 pm GMT • 100 Words @Lot 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.

    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 This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Astuteobservor II says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 6:37 pm GMT @CanSpeccy But if you really want a short, clear, definitive, irrefutable and conclusive debunking of 9/11 Truther theories here it is :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

    wow, that video should be mandatory for every american.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. zib says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 7:34 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.

    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.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. A
  169. El Dato says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:13 pm GMT • 100 Words @Rurik now this..

    Now, however, Europhysics Magazine, the respected publication of the European physics community, has published a report by four experts who say "the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition."


    http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/911-conspiracy-gets-support-from-physicists-study/

    .
    .

    Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.

    ~ Buddha


    Pretty weird that 28 pages have had to be sat on. Maybe someone DIDN'T tell the Saudis that they didn't need to go all Allah Uakbar (as they were planning to since the lat 80s actually) as we were ready to blow shit up anyway? I dunno. Missing of memos can occur.

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

  170. 5371 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:29 pm GMT @Decius Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield, who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which emerged after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that Strauss's opposition to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal going back to Truman was a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.

    Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about the transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say about war (Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor of preparedness and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize the Iraq War to the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed the former as imprudent, just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was imprudent.

    Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using that word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy is an inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a "conspiracy." however, before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the conspirators and the philosophic life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under modernity, which Strauss opposes. One of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and its proper relationship to society, which he believed modernity had corrupted.

    It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said or why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the thing people try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they don't trace to Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true.

    You are right that Strauss's culpability for the neocons has been vastly exaggerated. You are wrong that he is worth reading.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Ron Unz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:33 pm GMT • 200 Words NEW! @Miro23 Or maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the official 9/11 story because that's where their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from the official line on 9/11 are career ending moves .

    In simple terms, MSM owners have decided that 9/11 is a taboo subject (same as USS Liberty) and they decide what gets published.

    Or maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the official 9/11 story because that's where their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from the official line on 9/11 are career ending moves .

    In simple terms, MSM owners have decided that 9/11 is a taboo subject (same as USS Liberty) and they decide what gets published.

    Well, I haven't read through all of this enormously long discussion-thread, but I happened to notice this particular comment. Not having been an MSM journalist myself, I can't say whether or not it's true, but a couple of interesting, possibly coincidental, examples come to mind

    In late July 2010, longtime Canadian journalist Eric Margolis was told his column would be dropped, and just a few weeks later he published a double-length piece expressing strong doubts about 9/11, the first time he'd articulated that position:

    http://www.unz.com/article/911-the-mother-of-all-coincidences/

    In 2007, the parent company of The Chicago Tribune announced it had accepted a leveraged-buyout takeover bid by investor Sam Zell, who planned a massive wave cost-cutting layoffs, which eventually wrecked the company. In late 2007, the Chicago Tribune suddenly ran a very long piece regarding the Liberty Attack, about the only time I've ever seen it discussed in the MSM.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liberty_tuesoct02-story.html

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:47 pm GMT @Rurik now this..

    Now, however, Europhysics Magazine, the respected publication of the European physics community, has published a report by four experts who say "the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition."


    http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/911-conspiracy-gets-support-from-physicists-study/

    .
    .

    Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.

    ~ Buddha


    Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.

    ~ Buddha

    That was before the mainstream media

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. SolontoCroesus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:49 pm GMT • 700 Words

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJx1dVX45s

    Jeff Gates, author Guilt by Association
    (former legal counsel to US Senate finance committee)

    conspiracies Gates dabbled in: Who Killed Huey Long? (Long's death made FDR's presidency inevitable)

    8 min: "I'm not comfortable calling it zionism; I'm trained as a lawyer; I call it a multigenerational criminal gang. . . conspiracies do not hold together, neither do

    12 min: "Israelis planned the 1967 war and deliberately terrorized their own people . . . 'it was a put-up job . . . there was no attack on Israel; the Israelis took out the Egyptian air force."

    14 min: "The war is being waged against the American public, they are the great victims . . . what you do is put your people in that 'in between space;' . . . if you have a democracy based on facts and the rule of law, then it's essential that you have access to facts in order to have informed consent . . . this criminal gang dominates media, an 'in between' domain; pop culture, politics, think tanks, education, to induce people to embrace a narrative that they themselves can't really penetrate because it's the frame through which they see their world."

    17 min: "Narratives are pre-staged thru pop culture - music & entertainment/movies/TV. . ."

    24 min: "Assets are people who have been profiled to sufficient depth so that if you put them into a time, place and circumstances over which you have enormous control, . . . then you know within an acceptable range of probabilities that they will perform consistent with their profile." Monica Lewisnky added to Bill Clinton - the outcome was predictable . . .

    "Obama was identified & groomed by Betty Lou Saltzman, the dau of the UN ambassador, Pletnik . . . [related to Danielle Pletnik??] . . . I think initially he was an asset; I think he woke up & recognized that he was being used - I hope he woke up . . . it's a terrific challenge to confront those who are using you . . ."

    28 min –> JFK and the Council of Jewish Presidents . . . if JFK had succeeded in his demands on Ben Gurion, we would live in a different world today; the USA & entire region would be different."

    35 min: "When the 1967 war broke out [which gave rise to Israel attacking USS Liberty & killing 34 American servicemen] Matilda Krim was in the White House servicing our president. Is Wolf Blitzer going to report that? How many American know that? None."

    Gates: "A lot of the support we've gotten for this book has been from the broader Jewish community who say Thank You for exposing this . . .Perhaps we can indict, prosecute, imprison or execute those criminals . . .and allowing us the avenue to be ourselves . . . "

    Moderator: "Well, perhaps those people who feel that way and belong to the group should be more outspoken. I know a few but basically I can count them on one hand, from Gilad Atzmon to Israel Shamir and a couple of others. But if this is in their interest and they feel that their name is being misused, isn't that something which should be coming from this group, right?"

    [Gates weasels a bit, then] "You have to come up with a definition of What is it to be Jewish? Likewise, this term zionism - what sort of notion is it we're fighting? ? In this book we try to show how the repetitive behavior patterns and the criminal templates by which this works: you displace facts with manipulated beliefs - that's a classic . . . But it's a challenge to break through that: people say, Well, I'm part of this community and I have a law practice, an accounting practice, and I have to be careful . . ."

    38: MOD: "We have to define it: Is it an evolutionary survival strategy? Simply the expansion for Israel . . . If it's money and power alone . . . So it has to be defined by what is sought by the group, right?

    usw

    • Replies: @utu Thank you for the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJx1dVX45s to Jeff Gates interview.

    He is really very good.

    He has a book https://www.amazon.com/Guilt-Association-Deception-Self-Deceit-America/product-reviews/098213150X/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=recent Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

  174. CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:57 pm GMT • 100 Words @Wizard of Oz I ask only because you may have the JFK assassination stuff well organised in your head and up to date. What do you make of the update by Colin McLaren on the humanly plausible conspiracy theory that the bullet which killed Kennedy was fired accidentally by a Secret Service man standing in the car behind? Are there any knock down arguments against it? Or big holes?

    I love the idea that JFK was killed by a stray bullet accidentally fired by a secret service agent. It's so obvious once the truth has been pointed out.

    Probably the same sort of balls-up explains 9/11. You know, missiles intended to shoot down simulated highjacked planes in a drill on 9/11 accidentally wamming into the Pentagon and Twin Towers.

    Then Norad had to make up that stuff about 19 hijackers and Bin Laden to cover their arse.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. WorkingClass says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 9:12 pm GMT

    The CIA is the presidents private secret army. Nothing it does is legal.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  176. Ron Unz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 9:53 pm GMT NEW!

    For those without convenient access to a copy of the deHaven-Smith book, I've discovered there are some lengthy extracts available on the web:

    https://off-guardian.org/2016/09/04/are-you-a-mind-controlled-cia-stooge/

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz Ron

    You may be aware that Daniel Pipes made a study of conspiracy theories and has written books on the subject - which I haven't read. I have however sampled his long list of articles which can be found here:

    http://www.daniel.pipes.org/topics/4/conspiracy-theories , @Wizard of Oz International Pravda. My phone has just received from The Economist an article or editorial variously headed "Pepe and the Stormtroopers" and "The Normalisation of the Alt-Right". What is remarkable is the near unanimity of the hundreds of Comments in condemning TE for its condescending anti-Trump rant, even by those who won't vote for him. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

  177. Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 10:04 pm GMT • 200 Words

    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.

    I doubt it. I would think the sheer volume of conspiracy theories would actually help to conceal actual conspiracies. For instance, InfoWars could do a brilliant series on some anti-Russian conspiracy–with impeccable reasoning and unassailable evidence. But no one in the mainstream would ever take it seriously because of all the obvious junk they publish about 9/11 and Jade Helm and Sandy Hook. The signal to noise ration is astonishingly small.

    While, certainly, journalistic laziness or malfeasance could conceivably aid in concealing an actual conspiracy, the fact of the matter is that almost all "conspiracy theories" that I would identify as such are plagued by fairly obvious pathological reasoning. (9/11 truthers, for example proclaim that "burning jet fuel can't melt steel beams!" yet this mantra is irrelevant to the actual arguments being made by people who explain the mainstream theories.) Most conspiracies are ignored on that level. In other words, it's not that some particular conspiracy couldn't be true, it's that the conspiracy theory as argued by its believers is illogical or factually incorrect on its very face.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    "burning jet fuel can't melt steel beams!"
    The bad news is that the Liberty Bridge will be closed to all traffic for at least the next week as a result of fire damage Friday to a steel beam critical to the bridge's stability.

    The good news is that the vital, 55,000-vehicle-a-day bridge spanning the Monongahela River didn't collapse Friday. That catastrophe may have been minutes away from occurring if the fire had not been quickly extinguished to prevent further damage, PennDOT officials said at a news conference Sunday.

    "I can't tell you for sure [when a collapse might have occurred], I just know it was very tight," said PennDOT district bridge engineer Lou Ruzzi. "I can't tell you if it was 10 minutes, 15 minutes ... definitely less than 30 minutes."

    He said temperatures exceeded 1,200 degrees from the fire that occurred early Friday afternoon. He said it was due to errant sparks from a welder's torch that ignited plastic piping, which then lit afire a tarp draping the bridge during its two-year, $80 million renovation project.

    It took firefighters a half-hour or less to extinguish the blaze, but it already had severely damaged a 30-foot-long steel beam - a compression chord of the deck truss that is essential for the 88-year-old bridge's support. The fire shortened the beam and put it 6 inches out of place, putting added pressure on all of the other chords supporting the bridge, Mr. Ruzzi said.

    "It buckled and moved over" in an S shape instead of straight, he said. "The effect of that is when you don't have a steel member like that that's straight, the forces [stabilizing the bridge] don't go through that member correctly the way it was designed, so [they] ended up going through other parts of the bridge. ... The worst-case scenario was the whole section could fall."

    When asked how much would fall, Mr. Ruzzi responded, "Most of the bridge," maybe 2,000 feet of the 2,600-foot span. http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2016/09/04/Liberty-Bridge-to-be-closed-for-next-week-due-to-fire-damage/stories/201609050058

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  178. Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 10:35 pm GMT • 100 Words

    During the mid-1960s there had been increasing public skepticism about the Warren Commission findings that a lone gunman

    The problem with this theory is that the term "conspiracy theory" had been increasing in popularity since 1957. I'm not sure why, but Google Ngram search shows the term skyrocketing before 1964 and actually leveling out (at a high level) in 1965.

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22conspiracy+theory%22&year_start=1940&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%22%20conspiracy%20theory%20%22%3B%2Cc0

    The result was a huge spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout the American media, with the residual impact continueing right down to the present day.

    I'm not sure what the evidence is for this, but even if true, the phrase in general was already surging in popularity. I have no doubt the CIA was trying to use the term for some end, but blaming the CIA for its pejorative use seems unfounded unless there is some other evidence.

    • Replies: @utu The term "ground zero" was originally reserved for the center of nuclear explosion. After 9/11 it has changed. Dimitri Khalezow, the proponent of the nuclear demolition of WTC theory

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUnjbCxhXh4

    claimed that dictionary entries for "ground zero" were changed after 9/11 (some changes were done retroactively to earlier editions) to obscure the fact that term was reserved solely for the nuclear explosion. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

  179. SolontoCroesus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 10:43 pm GMT • 300 Words @Boris
    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.
    I doubt it. I would think the sheer volume of conspiracy theories would actually help to conceal actual conspiracies. For instance, InfoWars could do a brilliant series on some anti-Russian conspiracy--with impeccable reasoning and unassailable evidence. But no one in the mainstream would ever take it seriously because of all the obvious junk they publish about 9/11 and Jade Helm and Sandy Hook. The signal to noise ration is astonishingly small.

    While, certainly, journalistic laziness or malfeasance could conceivably aid in concealing an actual conspiracy, the fact of the matter is that almost all "conspiracy theories" that I would identify as such are plagued by fairly obvious pathological reasoning. (9/11 truthers, for example proclaim that "burning jet fuel can't melt steel beams!" yet this mantra is irrelevant to the actual arguments being made by people who explain the mainstream theories.) Most conspiracies are ignored on that level. In other words, it's not that some particular conspiracy couldn't be true, it's that the conspiracy theory as argued by its believers is illogical or factually incorrect on its very face.

    "burning jet fuel can't melt steel beams!"

    The bad news is that the Liberty Bridge will be closed to all traffic for at least the next week as a result of fire damage Friday to a steel beam critical to the bridge's stability.

    The good news is that the vital, 55,000-vehicle-a-day bridge spanning the Monongahela River didn't collapse Friday. That catastrophe may have been minutes away from occurring if the fire had not been quickly extinguished to prevent further damage, PennDOT officials said at a news conference Sunday.

    "I can't tell you for sure [when a collapse might have occurred], I just know it was very tight," said PennDOT district bridge engineer Lou Ruzzi. "I can't tell you if it was 10 minutes, 15 minutes definitely less than 30 minutes."

    He said temperatures exceeded 1,200 degrees from the fire that occurred early Friday afternoon. He said it was due to errant sparks from a welder's torch that ignited plastic piping, which then lit afire a tarp draping the bridge during its two-year, $80 million renovation project.

    It took firefighters a half-hour or less to extinguish the blaze, but it already had severely damaged a 30-foot-long steel beam - a compression chord of the deck truss that is essential for the 88-year-old bridge's support. The fire shortened the beam and put it 6 inches out of place, putting added pressure on all of the other chords supporting the bridge, Mr. Ruzzi said.

    "It buckled and moved over" in an S shape instead of straight, he said. "The effect of that is when you don't have a steel member like that that's straight, the forces [stabilizing the bridge] don't go through that member correctly the way it was designed, so [they] ended up going through other parts of the bridge. The worst-case scenario was the whole section could fall."

    When asked how much would fall, Mr. Ruzzi responded, "Most of the bridge," maybe 2,000 feet of the 2,600-foot span. http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2016/09/04/Liberty-Bridge-to-be-closed-for-next-week-due-to-fire-damage/stories/201609050058

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 10:48 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.

    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 This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Olorin says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 11:07 pm GMT • 200 Words @Anonymous The moon landings were likely faked. The Apollo footage was done through front screen projection. See Oleg Oleynik's work on this:

    "A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images"

    http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

    That's so 1990s.

    Everybody knows that it's the MOON that's faked.

    There isn't any. It's just a transverse parallax asynchronous stereoscopic projection onto the upper atmosphere by the Illuminati.

    So-called lunar eclipses are their way of letting each other know there's going to be a pig roast on Jekyll Island.

    Those so-called "stars" are just bits of light coming out of terrestrial volcanoes, shining off the troposphere.

    We see more of them today because there are also lasers added. People realized something was up when some stars disappeared after Krakatoa blew up, so the powers that be had to work on an invention to replace the stars. They keep coming up with more and more of them–viz. Hubble Space Telescope. But in fact there is nothing but a void up there, and the earth is the center of it.

    "Meteor showers" are just a clever animation. It's all just a ruse to hide the fact that there are underground polar military encampments.

    There's also not really any such thing as penguins. They were genetically engineered to serve as diversions from the other stuff happening at the poles, because, for instance, people will watch cute penguin GIFs for an hour while the Illuminati move people and materiel in the polar background in plain view. But the "penguins" are an instrument of mind control that block perception.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-most-important-penguin-gifs-on-the-internet?utm_term=.sjlo787AJ#.egQnQkQqP

    http://imgur.com/gallery/Ebevb

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 12:08 am GMT • 100 Words @Boris
    During the mid-1960s there had been increasing public skepticism about the Warren Commission findings that a lone gunman
    The problem with this theory is that the term "conspiracy theory" had been increasing in popularity since 1957. I'm not sure why, but Google Ngram search shows the term skyrocketing before 1964 and actually leveling out (at a high level) in 1965.

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22conspiracy+theory%22&year_start=1940&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%22%20conspiracy%20theory%20%22%3B%2Cc0

    The result was a huge spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout the American media, with the residual impact continueing right down to the present day.
    I'm not sure what the evidence is for this, but even if true, the phrase in general was already surging in popularity. I have no doubt the CIA was trying to use the term for some end, but blaming the CIA for its pejorative use seems unfounded unless there is some other evidence.

    The term "ground zero" was originally reserved for the center of nuclear explosion. After 9/11 it has changed. Dimitri Khalezow, the proponent of the nuclear demolition of WTC theory

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUnjbCxhXh4

    claimed that dictionary entries for "ground zero" were changed after 9/11 (some changes were done retroactively to earlier editions) to obscure the fact that term was reserved solely for the nuclear explosion.

    • Replies: @Boris That is a good example of an aspect of a conspiracy theory that is totally wrong on its face. The phrase "Ground zero" was used metaphorically way before September 11th, 2001. Anyone who spent 10 minutes researching this could find prominent examples:

    1997 book GROUND ZERO The Gender Wars in the Military By Linda Bird Francke

    1996 book VIRUS GROUND ZERO Stalking the Killer Viruses With the Centers for Disease Control. By Ed Regis. 244 pp. New York: Pocket Books.

    TERROR IN OKLAHOMA: AT GROUND ZERO : A series of articles from the New York Times about the OKC bombing.

    "Ground Zero" 1997 NYT book review: "James Meredith's forced admission was a milestone in upending the old order in America's most segregated state, a kind of race relations ground zero."

    These come from the first few pages of results when I searched the Times. The claim that the term "ground zero" was "reserved solely for the nuclear explosion." is obviously wring. Even if it weren't wrong, it's silly to suggest that it couldn't have been used figuratively for the first time after 9/11 or that its use signifies that a nuclear blast must have occurred at the WTC. , @Mr. Anon So, the world trade centers were brought down with nuclear weapons? Were the particle beams fired from orbiting battle stations down for routine maintenance that day? There seems to be no idea so stupid that a (so-called) "truther" won't entertain it. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  183. Anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 12:23 am GMT @John Jeremiah Smith
    How do you get Astronauts bouncing and hammers falling in Slo-Mo?
    Yeah, the gravity effects are a BIG job. Just slo-mo-ing won't do it, because you have different curvature of falling profile, and acceleration of gravity is different because moon-mass is less (and non-linear ref 30fps v. 60fps.)

    There would also be additive propagation delay in the radio signals. Pure delay, too -- no compensation would fix that in 1969.

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

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    @John Jeremiah Smith
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
    Shucks, that isn't even good conspiracy theory evidence. The video showing the "fake" is just normal characteristics of a CCTV camera of 1969. They didn't handle spikes well, and their light-bandwidth range was small. The "wires" that rather funny "expert" points out are retrace flares from reflection.

    Frankly, I've never seen ANY good "moon landing hoax" conspiracy theory, I suppose, for people who believe electronic devices work by magic, you can convince them of a lot of stuff. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  184. utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 12:38 am GMT @SolontoCroesus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJx1dVX45s

    Jeff Gates, author Guilt by Association
    (former legal counsel to US Senate finance committee)

    conspiracies Gates dabbled in: Who Killed Huey Long? (Long's death made FDR's presidency inevitable)

    8 min: "I'm not comfortable calling it zionism; I'm trained as a lawyer; I call it a multigenerational criminal gang. . . conspiracies do not hold together, neither do

    12 min: "Israelis planned the 1967 war and deliberately terrorized their own people . . . 'it was a put-up job . . . there was no attack on Israel; the Israelis took out the Egyptian air force."

    14 min: "The war is being waged against the American public, they are the great victims . . . what you do is put your people in that 'in between space;' . . . if you have a democracy based on facts and the rule of law, then it's essential that you have access to facts in order to have informed consent . . . this criminal gang dominates media, an 'in between' domain; pop culture, politics, think tanks, education, to induce people to embrace a narrative that they themselves can't really penetrate because it's the frame through which they see their world."

    17 min: "Narratives are pre-staged thru pop culture -- music & entertainment/movies/TV. . ."

    24 min: "Assets are people who have been profiled to sufficient depth so that if you put them into a time, place and circumstances over which you have enormous control, . . . then you know within an acceptable range of probabilities that they will perform consistent with their profile." Monica Lewisnky added to Bill Clinton -- the outcome was predictable . . .

    "Obama was identified & groomed by Betty Lou Saltzman, the dau of the UN ambassador, Pletnik . . . [related to Danielle Pletnik??] . . . I think initially he was an asset; I think he woke up & recognized that he was being used -- I hope he woke up . . . it's a terrific challenge to confront those who are using you . . ."

    28 min --> JFK and the Council of Jewish Presidents . . . if JFK had succeeded in his demands on Ben Gurion, we would live in a different world today; the USA & entire region would be different."

    35 min: "When the 1967 war broke out [which gave rise to Israel attacking USS Liberty & killing 34 American servicemen] Matilda Krim was in the White House servicing our president. Is Wolf Blitzer going to report that? How many American know that? None."

    Gates: "A lot of the support we've gotten for this book has been from the broader Jewish community who say Thank You for exposing this . . .Perhaps we can indict, prosecute, imprison or execute those criminals . . .and allowing us the avenue to be ourselves . . . "

    Moderator: "Well, perhaps those people who feel that way and belong to the group should be more outspoken. I know a few but basically I can count them on one hand, from Gilad Atzmon to Israel Shamir and a couple of others. But if this is in their interest and they feel that their name is being misused, isn't that something which should be coming from this group, right?"

    [Gates weasels a bit, then] "You have to come up with a definition of What is it to be Jewish? Likewise, this term zionism -- what sort of notion is it we're fighting? ? In this book we try to show how the repetitive behavior patterns and the criminal templates by which this works: you displace facts with manipulated beliefs -- that's a classic . . . But it's a challenge to break through that: people say, Well, I'm part of this community and I have a law practice, an accounting practice, and I have to be careful . . ."

    38: MOD: "We have to define it: Is it an evolutionary survival strategy? Simply the expansion for Israel . . . If it's money and power alone . . . So it has to be defined by what is sought by the group, right?

    usw

    Thank you for the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJx1dVX45s to Jeff Gates interview.

    He is really very good.

    He has a book https://www.amazon.com/Guilt-Association-Deception-Self-Deceit-America/product-reviews/098213150X/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=recent

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. anti_republocrat says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 1:48 am GMT • 100 Words @Chief Seattle 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.

    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.

    • Agree: John Jeremiah Smith Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 2:33 am GMT • 200 Words @utu The term "ground zero" was originally reserved for the center of nuclear explosion. After 9/11 it has changed. Dimitri Khalezow, the proponent of the nuclear demolition of WTC theory

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUnjbCxhXh4

    claimed that dictionary entries for "ground zero" were changed after 9/11 (some changes were done retroactively to earlier editions) to obscure the fact that term was reserved solely for the nuclear explosion.

    That is a good example of an aspect of a conspiracy theory that is totally wrong on its face. The phrase "Ground zero" was used metaphorically way before September 11th, 2001. Anyone who spent 10 minutes researching this could find prominent examples:

    1997 book GROUND ZERO The Gender Wars in the Military By Linda Bird Francke

    1996 book VIRUS GROUND ZERO Stalking the Killer Viruses With the Centers for Disease Control. By Ed Regis. 244 pp. New York: Pocket Books.

    TERROR IN OKLAHOMA: AT GROUND ZERO : A series of articles from the New York Times about the OKC bombing.

    "Ground Zero" 1997 NYT book review: "James Meredith's forced admission was a milestone in upending the old order in America's most segregated state, a kind of race relations ground zero."

    These come from the first few pages of results when I searched the Times. The claim that the term "ground zero" was "reserved solely for the nuclear explosion." is obviously wring. Even if it weren't wrong, it's silly to suggest that it couldn't have been used figuratively for the first time after 9/11 or that its use signifies that a nuclear blast must have occurred at the WTC.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. CalDre says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 3:16 am GMT • 200 Words @Wizard of Oz Thanks. I wonder what will happen to Israel's support if and when serious money and research and publicity is put into telling the whole Liberty story and making sure it is drummed in.

    Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes.

    Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes.

    Controlling, yes; but on-board, no. "Coincidentally", all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely (and in the case of 9/11, since everything was known in advance, the entire flight pattern could have been pre-programmed into a module and uploaded in to the aircrafts' computers).

    If you look into it you will find reports of a a "mystery" large white jet flying over Washington on the morning of 9/11. Some have identified it as a E-4B (a Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command Post), a strategic command and control military aircraft operated by the United States Air Force. We know neither Bush nor Cheney was on that plane.

    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.

    • Replies: @Miro23 [all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely]

    It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots down in Florida had problems with basic flying skills (see Daniel Hopsicker's book, https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title to get a close up look at their feeble flying abilities).

    This book also has an interesting account taken from the Longboat Observer, 9/26/2001 that a group of Arab looking men posing as journalists and claiming to have an interview appointment with George Bush tried to gain access to him on the morning of 9/11 at the Colony Beach and Tennis Resort. , @Wizard of Oz A nice change to receive a reply which is so coherent and precise. I'm glad I chose the word "controlling" in anticipation of the point you make. Now, with my limited time and interest, I look for the easy quibble and I might have said that there were plenty of reasons why one aircraft type was chosen..... but..... I Googled appropriately and came across the kind of problem that the very assertive sceptics/truthers throw up. Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been 767s. But a reliable seeming site said they were 767s but the other two were 757s.

    I have no reason to doubt that remote control could have achieved the WTC impacts and I like the imagination which has gone into suggesting that the 19 were duped into thinking they were only rehearsing or reconnoitring, although that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about UA 175. I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology didn't work satisfactorily. I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason to believe or deny that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which would deliver them to paradise. Do you?


    I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor which says that partly trained Arab pilots would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis would serve the plotters purposes adequately. Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false flag plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure of making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against Iraq.

    If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure and therefore failure - actually worse than failure - so it is absurd to suppose that they would take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives - let alone WTC 7! - or risk remnants being found in the debris. Why four planes if you are going to demolish the Twin Towers with the certainty of controlled demolitions?
    Without the unexpected total destruction of the WTC towers it made sense to plan four spectacular but limited outrages.

    So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11? , @Jett Rucker I seem to recall that two of the planes were B-757s and the two in New York were B-767s.

    I believe that leaves your point about the planes' being remote-controllable quite intact, and it is a proposition I myself find very persuasive, though I'm by no means entirely persuaded that the vehicles at the scenes were commercial aircraft at all.

    I believe the missing planes' controls were used to fly the aircraft out into the Atlantic (into Hurricane Erin) and carefully ditch them there in such fashion (and there IS such a fashion) as to leave no evidence on the surface whatsoever. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  188. Mr. Anon says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:03 am GMT @Miro23 Being smart has nothing to do with it.

    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).

    "Being smart has nothing to do with it."

    Being smart usually has everything to do with everything. But to people like you, ignorance opens up a world of possibilities, no matter how false or ludicrous they may be.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Mr. Anon says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:07 am GMT @utu The term "ground zero" was originally reserved for the center of nuclear explosion. After 9/11 it has changed. Dimitri Khalezow, the proponent of the nuclear demolition of WTC theory

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUnjbCxhXh4

    claimed that dictionary entries for "ground zero" were changed after 9/11 (some changes were done retroactively to earlier editions) to obscure the fact that term was reserved solely for the nuclear explosion.

    So, the world trade centers were brought down with nuclear weapons? Were the particle beams fired from orbiting battle stations down for routine maintenance that day? There seems to be no idea so stupid that a (so-called) "truther" won't entertain it.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Nathan Hale says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:12 am GMT • 100 Words @Jason Liu 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.

    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 This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. NosytheDuke says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:32 am GMT @Alfred1860 I find it quite amusing how, in an article supporting of the existence of conspiracy theories, so many comments consist of hurling insults at people making skeptical comments about what are obviously very sacred cows.

    People need to remember than by definition, the ratio of what you don't know to what you do know is infinity to one. Be more open minded.

    "They shall find it difficult, they who have taken authority as truth rather than truth for authority".

    Gerald Massey

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. Miro23 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 5:49 am GMT • 100 Words @CalDre Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes.

    Controlling, yes; but on-board, no. "Coincidentally", all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely (and in the case of 9/11, since everything was known in advance, the entire flight pattern could have been pre-programmed into a module and uploaded in to the aircrafts' computers).

    If you look into it you will find reports of a a "mystery" large white jet flying over Washington on the morning of 9/11. Some have identified it as a E-4B (a Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command Post), a strategic command and control military aircraft operated by the United States Air Force. We know neither Bush nor Cheney was on that plane.

    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.

    [all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely]

    It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots down in Florida had problems with basic flying skills (see Daniel Hopsicker's book, https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title to get a close up look at their feeble flying abilities).

    This book also has an interesting account taken from the Longboat Observer, 9/26/2001 that a group of Arab looking men posing as journalists and claiming to have an interview appointment with George Bush tried to gain access to him on the morning of 9/11 at the Colony Beach and Tennis Resort.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots down in Florida had problems with basic flying skills
    LOL. No, it wasn't. It was pure VFR on a clear day, with no FAA restrictions being observed by the Arab pilots. A 12-year old Boy Scout could hit a tomato can with a 767 under those conditions. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 10:59 am GMT • 400 Words @CalDre Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes.

    Controlling, yes; but on-board, no. "Coincidentally", all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely (and in the case of 9/11, since everything was known in advance, the entire flight pattern could have been pre-programmed into a module and uploaded in to the aircrafts' computers).

    If you look into it you will find reports of a a "mystery" large white jet flying over Washington on the morning of 9/11. Some have identified it as a E-4B (a Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command Post), a strategic command and control military aircraft operated by the United States Air Force. We know neither Bush nor Cheney was on that plane.

    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.

    A nice change to receive a reply which is so coherent and precise. I'm glad I chose the word "controlling" in anticipation of the point you make. Now, with my limited time and interest, I look for the easy quibble and I might have said that there were plenty of reasons why one aircraft type was chosen .. but .. I Googled appropriately and came across the kind of problem that the very assertive sceptics/truthers throw up. Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been 767s. But a reliable seeming site said they were 767s but the other two were 757s.

    I have no reason to doubt that remote control could have achieved the WTC impacts and I like the imagination which has gone into suggesting that the 19 were duped into thinking they were only rehearsing or reconnoitring, although that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about UA 175. I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology didn't work satisfactorily. I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason to believe or deny that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which would deliver them to paradise. Do you?

    I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor which says that partly trained Arab pilots would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis would serve the plotters purposes adequately. Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false flag plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure of making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against Iraq.

    If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure and therefore failure – actually worse than failure – so it is absurd to suppose that they would take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives – let alone WTC 7! – or risk remnants being found in the debris. Why four planes if you are going to demolish the Twin Towers with the certainty of controlled demolitions?
    Without the unexpected total destruction of the WTC towers it made sense to plan four spectacular but limited outrages.

    So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11?

    • Replies: @CalDre Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been 767s. Their conclusion on this point has been disputed (e.g., see "Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 Truth WTC Speeds"). I don't know what planes were involved exactly but the official story says it was 767s and I have not yet been convinced otherwise. Regardless, a 757 is just as easily remote controlled.

    that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about UA 175 . And what is that? The supposed call from Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong to American Airlines on an Airfone? This could be easily faked. Bear in mind that, aside from the 19 cavedwellers, the other suspect is a CIA/Mossad joint op, meaning, the most sophisticated intelligence and black ops outfits in history. Thus, when exploring alternative explanations, you need to account for the capabilities of these agencies, not that of the proverbial Joe Shmoe.

    I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology didn't work satisfactorily. It's certainly possible they engaged in a suicide attack, but IMO unlikely given their behavior leading up to their mission.

    I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason to believe or deny that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which would deliver them to paradise. Do you? There is a useful article entitled "The Concept of Martyrdom in Islam" on the al-Islam website. The idea of martyrdom involes complete submission and devotion to God. Engaging in major sins immediately before dieing for God is absolutely non-sensical. Both strip clubs and alcohol are strictly forbidden in Islam.

    I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor . Ockham's Razos is a somewhat useful tiebreaker in scientific theories; it is wholly inapplicable to solving crimes.

    partly trained Arab pilots would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis would serve the plotters purposes adequately. This may be true in theory, but in practice, when one looks at the maneovers the planes underwent, it is questionable if even the most sophisticated pilots could have flown the planes as the official story requires. It is impossible that untrained civilians could have done so (and, of course, even if one were to apply Ockham's Razor, impossibile or exceedingly improbable theories are ruled out, the tiebreaker applies to multiple theories which equally explain the same phenomenon).

    Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false flag plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure of making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against Iraq. There was no connection to Saddam Hussein, it was entirely fabricated (and in a quite sophisticated manner). But if you read the PNAC (neo-cons) treatise "Rebuilding America's Defenses", they do make reference to a "Pearl-Harbor like attack" which would allow them to implement their agenda, which includes re-shaping the Middle East (for the benefit of Israel). These same PNAC authors, who wrote this treatise, were in power at the time of 9/11.

    If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure and therefore failure – actually worse than failure – so it is absurd to suppose that they would take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives – let alone WTC 7! – or risk remnants being found in the debris. I think it was important to their objective that the buildings collapse so that there was a large number of casualties as well as the desired "shock and awe" effect. And also I do not think pre-wiring the buildings was that risky: if they were caught (which they had no reason to believe, as they would have been responsible for the investigation, which they effectively managed to prevent - note that Cheney was one of the PNAC plotters/authors), they most likely have a backup story that the buildings were wired after the 1995 WTC bombing attack so that, if the building were at risk of collapse, they could bring it down safely, rather than risk the domino effect of having a large chunk of downtown Manhattan collapse.

    So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11? Clearly Israel and the Zionist neo-cons who took power 8 months before the event. Note also that control of the WTC was handed over to Zionist Jew Silverstein from the New York Port Authority only a few months before the event. During that time, there was a lot of nighttime work in the "elevator shafts" - IMO, Mossad agents planting the explosives (there is of course substantial evidence for this) - and Silverstein ended up making out like a bandit with his insurance proceeds. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  194. John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 12:51 pm GMT • 100 Words @Anonymous https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE


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

    Shucks, that isn't even good conspiracy theory evidence. The video showing the "fake" is just normal characteristics of a CCTV camera of 1969. They didn't handle spikes well, and their light-bandwidth range was small. The "wires" that rather funny "expert" points out are retrace flares from reflection.

    Frankly, I've never seen ANY good "moon landing hoax" conspiracy theory, I suppose, for people who believe electronic devices work by magic, you can convince them of a lot of stuff.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 12:57 pm GMT • 100 Words @Miro23 [all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely]

    It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots down in Florida had problems with basic flying skills (see Daniel Hopsicker's book, https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title to get a close up look at their feeble flying abilities).

    This book also has an interesting account taken from the Longboat Observer, 9/26/2001 that a group of Arab looking men posing as journalists and claiming to have an interview appointment with George Bush tried to gain access to him on the morning of 9/11 at the Colony Beach and Tennis Resort.

    It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots down in Florida had problems with basic flying skills

    LOL. No, it wasn't. It was pure VFR on a clear day, with no FAA restrictions being observed by the Arab pilots. A 12-year old Boy Scout could hit a tomato can with a 767 under those conditions.

    • Replies: @Miro23 There are always going to be differences of opinion on a thing like this, but Capt. Russ Wittenberg actually flew two of these aircraft doesn't have any doubts about it:

    "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower.
    I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding - pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's.
    And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it." , @CalDre A 12-year old Boy Scout could hit a tomato can with a 767 under those conditions.

    You are severely misinformed. Even though one could make arguments about the second WTC impact (there was a super tight turn leading into the impact zone), the obvious flying miracle was the Pentagon strike.

    First it is worth making some context for the Pentagon. The Pentagon has 5 sides. One side had been heavily reinforced and was largely empty, except for a small group of auditors who were searching for the missing $2 trillion from the Pentagon budget that Rumsfeld had mentioned on 9/10/01. Thus, if you wanted to do damage to the Pentagon, this was the worst place to hit in terms of inflicting damage (though a perfect place to hit to minimize damage but coverup the missing trillions).

    Second, this side of the Pentagon was on the south side, whilst the plane was coming from the north. Moreover, this side was down an embankment from the road above. Thus, it was by far the most difficult part of the Pentagon to hit.

    So, to recap: the side that was struck was the most protected, the least valuable, and the hardest to hit.

    What the plane did in its approach was an absolute miracle. Without slowing down to landing speed, the plane came from the north, made a tight 180 degree turn, came down low over the road above the Pentagon at 500 mph (so low that it clipped the light posts), stayed low to the ground along the embankment, cruised exactly parallel to the ground once getting to the bottom of the embankment (this is known from the 5 frames of video released by the Pentagon about a year after 9/11, from the lack of any damage to the grass prior to the point of impact, and from the fact the impact point was only a few feet above the ground).

    Experienced pilots who have many years flying military aircraft and a decade of flying Boeings have tried to simulate a flight path as this and were unsuccessful. Indeed some of the maneuvers exceed the flight parameters of the Boeing involved. Imagine flying a massive, slowly responsive plane at 500 mph down through an obstacle course and hitting an exact bullseye (pretty much akin to painting a line on a tarmac and, at full speed (NOT landing speed), landing the plane so the rear wheels first touch the ground on the line). For these alleged terrorists, who didn't even practice landing a Cessna (and had never even been in a Boeing 757 or 767 cockpit), it is entirely impossible . Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  196. Buzz Cauldron says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:07 pm GMT • 300 Words

    Almost all of our fake world has the truth hidden in a way that keeps everyone arguing over one of two lies. Did we go to the moon? Yes, of course, and other places too. Just not with the technology and probably even the people we were deceived into thinking we did. The folks that did go were not Japanese tourists, capturing nearly every possible moment in film. They were in the most extreme life threatening situation of anyone in history, they weren't there to take pictures. So they faked a few, ok nearly all. It is obvious. A grade school student can see that. The simple use of stereo parallax proves this quite easily with nearly all the common moon photos.
    http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
    The government had no desire to show the Russians how we were getting there, or what we were doing there, nor did they want to show the public what could have and probably did turn into a horror story for many of the real astronauts. The secret space program was born, and it pretty quickly found that the moon is not what we think it is and has more in common with a star wars death star than a natural satellite. It was parked there, within human history. We suspected that all along. They were told to leave it alone, so they went to Mars. They can't even pretend to tell you or show you what is going on there, it would rip the foundational pillars out of from under all of human history and belief.

    We debate everything in this world with THIS or THAT, when the illusion is a cover for a horrifying truth, that even the few (people who the world doesn't even know are alive) who know the truth behind the curtain, truly, truly don't understand entirely. So what would you have them say?

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  197. Neil Sutherland says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:18 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The American tradition of 'conspiracy theory', goes all the way back to America's founding, when the founding fathers wrote the Alien and Sedition Act, for fear of 'Jacobins' [jefferson and franklin would know, as they were in paris during and participants in the french revolution]. Jacobins were Masonic, or 'lluminati', and their continuous activities led to the 'Anti-Masonic' party. During Andrew Jackson's time, the Rothschild bankers continued to try to re-establish a 'central bank', and their non-stop conspiring eventually led to the Federal Reserve Act.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  198. Jett Rucker says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:51 pm GMT

    The mother of all conspiracy theories is the Gas Chamber Libel against the German People.

    Vastly outdoes the Blood Libel against the Jews, and is literally a crime to express disbelief in in 19 countries today.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    and is literally a crime to express disbelief in in 19 countries today.
    not just disbelief, but simply skepticism about any single tenet of that religions doctrine

    some of which, are well known and universally repudiated lies; like the soap and lampshades blood libels. Today all scholars of that time know those were fabrications, and are not true, but if you say in Germany what everyone knows, that there were no human skin lampshades, they'll still send you to prison. They've already determined that "the truth is no defense"

    even if you don't doubt any single tenet of the holy doctrine, but only fail to give it sufficient sacred status in your own heart- as being of great personal significance to you, and you say that 'to me, it's only a detail of history', why that's illegal too and you'll be punished and fined, at the very least.

    it's as if they have a lot to lose if people stop genuflecting to the Jews every time someone say "Holocaust". So much so that they're willing to demand on pain of prison that you believe it all, or else!

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/11/14/nazi-grandma/75773774/ Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

  199. Jett Rucker says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:59 pm GMT • 100 Words @CalDre Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes.

    Controlling, yes; but on-board, no. "Coincidentally", all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely (and in the case of 9/11, since everything was known in advance, the entire flight pattern could have been pre-programmed into a module and uploaded in to the aircrafts' computers).

    If you look into it you will find reports of a a "mystery" large white jet flying over Washington on the morning of 9/11. Some have identified it as a E-4B (a Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command Post), a strategic command and control military aircraft operated by the United States Air Force. We know neither Bush nor Cheney was on that plane.

    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.

    I seem to recall that two of the planes were B-757s and the two in New York were B-767s.

    I believe that leaves your point about the planes' being remote-controllable quite intact, and it is a proposition I myself find very persuasive, though I'm by no means entirely persuaded that the vehicles at the scenes were commercial aircraft at all.

    I believe the missing planes' controls were used to fly the aircraft out into the Atlantic (into Hurricane Erin) and carefully ditch them there in such fashion (and there IS such a fashion) as to leave no evidence on the surface whatsoever.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Miro23 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 5:10 pm GMT • 200 Words @John Jeremiah Smith
    It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots down in Florida had problems with basic flying skills
    LOL. No, it wasn't. It was pure VFR on a clear day, with no FAA restrictions being observed by the Arab pilots. A 12-year old Boy Scout could hit a tomato can with a 767 under those conditions.

    There are always going to be differences of opinion on a thing like this, but Capt. Russ Wittenberg actually flew two of these aircraft doesn't have any doubts about it:

    "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower.
    I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding - pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's.
    And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. CalDre says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 5:19 pm GMT • 400 Words @John Jeremiah Smith
    It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots down in Florida had problems with basic flying skills
    LOL. No, it wasn't. It was pure VFR on a clear day, with no FAA restrictions being observed by the Arab pilots. A 12-year old Boy Scout could hit a tomato can with a 767 under those conditions.

    A 12-year old Boy Scout could hit a tomato can with a 767 under those conditions.

    You are severely misinformed. Even though one could make arguments about the second WTC impact (there was a super tight turn leading into the impact zone), the obvious flying miracle was the Pentagon strike.

    First it is worth making some context for the Pentagon. The Pentagon has 5 sides. One side had been heavily reinforced and was largely empty, except for a small group of auditors who were searching for the missing $2 trillion from the Pentagon budget that Rumsfeld had mentioned on 9/10/01. Thus, if you wanted to do damage to the Pentagon, this was the worst place to hit in terms of inflicting damage (though a perfect place to hit to minimize damage but coverup the missing trillions).

    Second, this side of the Pentagon was on the south side, whilst the plane was coming from the north. Moreover, this side was down an embankment from the road above. Thus, it was by far the most difficult part of the Pentagon to hit.

    So, to recap: the side that was struck was the most protected, the least valuable, and the hardest to hit.

    What the plane did in its approach was an absolute miracle. Without slowing down to landing speed, the plane came from the north, made a tight 180 degree turn, came down low over the road above the Pentagon at 500 mph (so low that it clipped the light posts), stayed low to the ground along the embankment, cruised exactly parallel to the ground once getting to the bottom of the embankment (this is known from the 5 frames of video released by the Pentagon about a year after 9/11, from the lack of any damage to the grass prior to the point of impact, and from the fact the impact point was only a few feet above the ground).

    Experienced pilots who have many years flying military aircraft and a decade of flying Boeings have tried to simulate a flight path as this and were unsuccessful. Indeed some of the maneuvers exceed the flight parameters of the Boeing involved. Imagine flying a massive, slowly responsive plane at 500 mph down through an obstacle course and hitting an exact bullseye (pretty much akin to painting a line on a tarmac and, at full speed (NOT landing speed), landing the plane so the rear wheels first touch the ground on the line). For these alleged terrorists, who didn't even practice landing a Cessna (and had never even been in a Boeing 757 or 767 cockpit), it is entirely impossible .

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. CalDre says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 6:05 pm GMT • 800 Words @Wizard of Oz A nice change to receive a reply which is so coherent and precise. I'm glad I chose the word "controlling" in anticipation of the point you make. Now, with my limited time and interest, I look for the easy quibble and I might have said that there were plenty of reasons why one aircraft type was chosen..... but..... I Googled appropriately and came across the kind of problem that the very assertive sceptics/truthers throw up. Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been 767s. But a reliable seeming site said they were 767s but the other two were 757s.

    I have no reason to doubt that remote control could have achieved the WTC impacts and I like the imagination which has gone into suggesting that the 19 were duped into thinking they were only rehearsing or reconnoitring, although that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about UA 175. I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology didn't work satisfactorily. I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason to believe or deny that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which would deliver them to paradise. Do you?


    I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor which says that partly trained Arab pilots would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis would serve the plotters purposes adequately. Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false flag plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure of making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against Iraq.

    If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure and therefore failure - actually worse than failure - so it is absurd to suppose that they would take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives - let alone WTC 7! - or risk remnants being found in the debris. Why four planes if you are going to demolish the Twin Towers with the certainty of controlled demolitions?
    Without the unexpected total destruction of the WTC towers it made sense to plan four spectacular but limited outrages.

    So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11?

    Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been 767s. Their conclusion on this point has been disputed (e.g., see "Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 Truth WTC Speeds"). I don't know what planes were involved exactly but the official story says it was 767s and I have not yet been convinced otherwise. Regardless, a 757 is just as easily remote controlled.

    that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about UA 175 . And what is that? The supposed call from Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong to American Airlines on an Airfone? This could be easily faked. Bear in mind that, aside from the 19 cavedwellers, the other suspect is a CIA/Mossad joint op, meaning, the most sophisticated intelligence and black ops outfits in history. Thus, when exploring alternative explanations, you need to account for the capabilities of these agencies, not that of the proverbial Joe Shmoe.

    I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology didn't work satisfactorily. It's certainly possible they engaged in a suicide attack, but IMO unlikely given their behavior leading up to their mission.

    I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason to believe or deny that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which would deliver them to paradise. Do you? There is a useful article entitled "The Concept of Martyrdom in Islam" on the al-Islam website. The idea of martyrdom involes complete submission and devotion to God. Engaging in major sins immediately before dieing for God is absolutely non-sensical. Both strip clubs and alcohol are strictly forbidden in Islam.

    I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor . Ockham's Razos is a somewhat useful tiebreaker in scientific theories; it is wholly inapplicable to solving crimes.

    partly trained Arab pilots would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis would serve the plotters purposes adequately. This may be true in theory, but in practice, when one looks at the maneovers the planes underwent, it is questionable if even the most sophisticated pilots could have flown the planes as the official story requires. It is impossible that untrained civilians could have done so (and, of course, even if one were to apply Ockham's Razor, impossibile or exceedingly improbable theories are ruled out, the tiebreaker applies to multiple theories which equally explain the same phenomenon).

    Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false flag plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure of making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against Iraq. There was no connection to Saddam Hussein, it was entirely fabricated (and in a quite sophisticated manner). But if you read the PNAC (neo-cons) treatise "Rebuilding America's Defenses", they do make reference to a "Pearl-Harbor like attack" which would allow them to implement their agenda, which includes re-shaping the Middle East (for the benefit of Israel). These same PNAC authors, who wrote this treatise, were in power at the time of 9/11.

    If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure and therefore failure – actually worse than failure – so it is absurd to suppose that they would take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives – let alone WTC 7! – or risk remnants being found in the debris. I think it was important to their objective that the buildings collapse so that there was a large number of casualties as well as the desired "shock and awe" effect. And also I do not think pre-wiring the buildings was that risky: if they were caught (which they had no reason to believe, as they would have been responsible for the investigation, which they effectively managed to prevent – note that Cheney was one of the PNAC plotters/authors), they most likely have a backup story that the buildings were wired after the 1995 WTC bombing attack so that, if the building were at risk of collapse, they could bring it down safely, rather than risk the domino effect of having a large chunk of downtown Manhattan collapse.

    So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11? Clearly Israel and the Zionist neo-cons who took power 8 months before the event. Note also that control of the WTC was handed over to Zionist Jew Silverstein from the New York Port Authority only a few months before the event. During that time, there was a lot of nighttime work in the "elevator shafts" – IMO, Mossad agents planting the explosives (there is of course substantial evidence for this) – and Silverstein ended up making out like a bandit with his insurance proceeds.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz I am amazed. I can't immediately see any obvious flaws and BS! That's a first.

    Where does WTC 7 fit into that. Just a chance bonus? , @Wizard of Oz I was back on UA 175 difficulties and reflecting on the fakeability of a lot of calls (said by some to have been technically impossible I recall) when I saw how the most plausible version of your version must work out.

    UA 175 was always meant to crash somewhere after a real or apparent fight with the terrorists. (But how do you get up that fight to cover the diversion?) It's exactly the kind of distraction I would have planned into that op. Maybe the devout Islamists on that flight - or just one or two of them - knew that they were going to die (check night club CCTV:-) ) and maybe even knew that UA175 was a diversion in a bigger plan.

    Wow I think I have a new career for my next lifetime. Would you care to buy some shares in my FakeMarsLanding Inc float? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  203. Rehmat says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 6:15 pm GMT • 300 Words @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....

    Without GAS CHAMBERS the SIX MILLION DIED Holy COW becomes a HOUSE OF CARDS.

    On June 29, 2016, Boston-based publishing company Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) announced that it will publish Adolf Hitler's 'antisemite' book Mein Kampf to fund needy Jewish survivors of Nazi era.

    "The proceeds from sale of Mein Kampf will be donated to Jewish Family & Children's Service of Greater Boston," said Andrew Russell, the publisher's director of corporate social responsibility.

    The publisher had been donating money to organizations that combat anti-Semitism since 2000. Since publication of Mein Kampf is banned in France, the job was given to HMH. The publication of the book was opposed by several Jewish groups as result of company's recent announcement that in the future, it will provide funds to some non-Jewish NGOs. HMH caved-in to Jewish pressure and decided to bribe them by donating proceeds from the book to the 'evergreen' Holocaust Industry.

    In September 2001, the company filed a law suit in a New York court against Jews for Jesus, accusing the pro-Israel Evangelical group of infringing the company's copyright on its popular children's storybook character, Curious George, which the company had been publishing for 70 years.

    Interestingly, HMH is a subsidiary of Vivendi Universal, a multinational mass media company in Paris, whose CEO is Arnaud de Puyfontaine (Jewish).

    By now, hundreds of millions people around the world including some honest Jews know that Holocaust has become a tool of the Organized Jewry to rob western nations and individuals to nurse Israel's military machine. Germans and the 65 million American Evangelists are the biggest suckers of this Zionist Mafia. Organized Jewry has sucked over $93 billion from German taxpayers since the 1960s.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/07/02/hitlers-mein-kampf-to-fund-holocaust-industry/

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. AnotherLover says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 6:56 pm GMT • 200 Words @Pat Casey
    "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.

    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 This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. AnotherLover says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 7:08 pm GMT @moneta The biggest conpiracy, which most fail understand, is that the reason that there is all of economic termoil and wars, is due to one reason and one reason only. There is no money and what we use for transactions is the invertion of money, created by an entry of a computer. Its main purpose is to make the issuers rich and everyone else in debt to them..Countries who don't want to go into their debt become enemies and are villified. This illusion is reinforced by films, media. Tax authorities. the government.
    THIS IS THE BIGGEST CONSPIRACY on which all of the others are constructed. Including the socialist satanist society built upon it. To make it work markets have to be manipulated, which they all are.
    Get rid of money and you get rid of god. liberty, personal property and everything else of value because all values are based on nominal debt and this debt is not repayable because it has to be borrowed to be repayed and the method of repayment doesnt exist. Fereral reserve notes are counterfieted to create debt.

    Agree.

    Take that weird moderation quirk!

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. AnotherLover says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 7:15 pm GMT • 100 Words @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?

    I think dismissing intuition is for suckers. What successful businessman would offer such advice? Intuition assembles all the information available to the organism, and it is rarely wrong in my experience. I appreciate when people are willing to offer their gut reaction to an event, especially knowing they are doing so in a society which trains its members to pounce on them that would have the temerity to do so.

    Present company excluded, of course

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Rurik says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 7:23 pm GMT • 200 Words @Jett Rucker The mother of all conspiracy theories is the Gas Chamber Libel against the German People.

    Vastly outdoes the Blood Libel against the Jews, and is literally a crime to express disbelief in in 19 countries today.

    and is literally a crime to express disbelief in in 19 countries today.

    not just disbelief, but simply skepticism about any single tenet of that religions doctrine

    some of which, are well known and universally repudiated lies; like the soap and lampshades blood libels. Today all scholars of that time know those were fabrications, and are not true, but if you say in Germany what everyone knows, that there were no human skin lampshades, they'll still send you to prison. They've already determined that "the truth is no defense"

    even if you don't doubt any single tenet of the holy doctrine, but only fail to give it sufficient sacred status in your own heart- as being of great personal significance to you, and you say that 'to me, it's only a detail of history', why that's illegal too and you'll be punished and fined, at the very least.

    it's as if they have a lot to lose if people stop genuflecting to the Jews every time someone say "Holocaust". So much so that they're willing to demand on pain of prison that you believe it all, or else!

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/11/14/nazi-grandma/75773774/

    • Agree: Bill Jones Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Ed Rankin says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 8:42 pm GMT • 300 Words

    In Dispatch 1035-960 mailed to station chiefs on April 1, 1967, the CIA laid out a series of "talking points" in its memo addressing the "conspiracy theorists" who were questioning the Warren Commission's findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. They include the following:

    Claim that it "would be impossible to conceal" such a large-scale conspiracy.

    Claim that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition.

    Claim that "no significant new evidence has emerged"

    Accuse theorists of falling in love with their theories.

    Claimed conspiracy theorists are wedded to their theories before the evidence was in.

    Accuse theorists of being politically motivated.

    Accuse theorists of being financially motivated.

    I have found numerous examples of these exact points being made in televised news segments, newspapers, magazines and even some academic articles and scholarly books.

    Additionally, some of the most influential and frequently-cited authors who are the most critical of "conspiracy theorists", both academic and lay people, have very direct ties to government, foundations and other institutions of authority.

    While we can't know if the CIA was primarily responsible for the creation of the pejorative, but what we do know from the Church Committee hearings, was that the Agency did have paid operatives working inside major media organizations as late as the 1970s. In fact, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper has acknowledged ties to the CIA.

    With recent lifting of restrictions on the government's use of domestic propaganda with the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, I think reasonable people would expect this type of pejorative construction to resume if in fact, it ever ceased.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  209. Bill Jones says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 9:47 pm GMT

    A nice little piece on one of the players in the big conspiracy:
    https://www.corbettreport.com/911-suspects-philip-zelikow/

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  210. Buzz Mohawk says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 10:29 pm GMT • 200 Words @Anonymous
    I was a boy watching those transmissions you helped bring us. Thank you, Sir!

    Apollo is one of the greatest human achievements, my absolute favorite historical event. I consider myself lucky to have been alive and old enough to witness and understand it.

    ...

    And I believe there has been in fact some conspiratorial effort over the years to promote their idiocy, a conspiracy on the part of those who would weaken American pride and reputation.

    Sure, it's certainly possible that there's been a conspiracy to promote the notion that the moon landing was a hoax.

    But it's also true that people with deep emotional attachments to things, especially inculcated in childhood, have trouble considering and questioning certain things. And it's well known that propaganda deliberately tries to inculcate these sort of emotional attachments in order to be more effective.

    You apparently have trouble accepting an accomplished fact that contradicts your pathetic, childish idea of what is possible or was possible at that time.

    You must not have much aptitude for physics or engineering or any hard science. I grasped it when I was age ten in ways you still can't. It wasn't childhood wonder, as you assume. It was a real understanding of what was being done. It was, at age ten, beyond what you even possess now.

    No one who has an understanding of physics and engineering principles thinks as you do. Yet you write such an insightful sounding piece of armchair psychology.

    The Apollo program was so far beyond your comprehension that you just have to write crap like what you wrote to me. We are now half a century after the fact, and fools like you fall for this garbage.

    Pathetic.

    For whatever reason, maybe ones Ron describes here, a conspiracy theory about Apollo has been floated for decades. Scientifically illiterate fools fall for it.

    Yes, as Ron implies, these things might be created just to drag more probable conspiracies into the same mental swamp in the public mind.

    This one conspiracy theory you fell for lies squarely in the category of the blindingly stupid.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz Unless I have missed relevant prolegomena from this Anonymous I think you have grossly overreacted to what he/she actually wrote. In a tellingly emotional way in fact. QED? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 10:40 pm GMT @CalDre Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been 767s. Their conclusion on this point has been disputed (e.g., see "Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 Truth WTC Speeds"). I don't know what planes were involved exactly but the official story says it was 767s and I have not yet been convinced otherwise. Regardless, a 757 is just as easily remote controlled.

    that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about UA 175 . And what is that? The supposed call from Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong to American Airlines on an Airfone? This could be easily faked. Bear in mind that, aside from the 19 cavedwellers, the other suspect is a CIA/Mossad joint op, meaning, the most sophisticated intelligence and black ops outfits in history. Thus, when exploring alternative explanations, you need to account for the capabilities of these agencies, not that of the proverbial Joe Shmoe.

    I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology didn't work satisfactorily. It's certainly possible they engaged in a suicide attack, but IMO unlikely given their behavior leading up to their mission.

    I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason to believe or deny that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which would deliver them to paradise. Do you? There is a useful article entitled "The Concept of Martyrdom in Islam" on the al-Islam website. The idea of martyrdom involes complete submission and devotion to God. Engaging in major sins immediately before dieing for God is absolutely non-sensical. Both strip clubs and alcohol are strictly forbidden in Islam.

    I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor . Ockham's Razos is a somewhat useful tiebreaker in scientific theories; it is wholly inapplicable to solving crimes.

    partly trained Arab pilots would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis would serve the plotters purposes adequately. This may be true in theory, but in practice, when one looks at the maneovers the planes underwent, it is questionable if even the most sophisticated pilots could have flown the planes as the official story requires. It is impossible that untrained civilians could have done so (and, of course, even if one were to apply Ockham's Razor, impossibile or exceedingly improbable theories are ruled out, the tiebreaker applies to multiple theories which equally explain the same phenomenon).

    Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false flag plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure of making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against Iraq. There was no connection to Saddam Hussein, it was entirely fabricated (and in a quite sophisticated manner). But if you read the PNAC (neo-cons) treatise "Rebuilding America's Defenses", they do make reference to a "Pearl-Harbor like attack" which would allow them to implement their agenda, which includes re-shaping the Middle East (for the benefit of Israel). These same PNAC authors, who wrote this treatise, were in power at the time of 9/11.

    If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure and therefore failure – actually worse than failure – so it is absurd to suppose that they would take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives – let alone WTC 7! – or risk remnants being found in the debris. I think it was important to their objective that the buildings collapse so that there was a large number of casualties as well as the desired "shock and awe" effect. And also I do not think pre-wiring the buildings was that risky: if they were caught (which they had no reason to believe, as they would have been responsible for the investigation, which they effectively managed to prevent - note that Cheney was one of the PNAC plotters/authors), they most likely have a backup story that the buildings were wired after the 1995 WTC bombing attack so that, if the building were at risk of collapse, they could bring it down safely, rather than risk the domino effect of having a large chunk of downtown Manhattan collapse.

    So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11? Clearly Israel and the Zionist neo-cons who took power 8 months before the event. Note also that control of the WTC was handed over to Zionist Jew Silverstein from the New York Port Authority only a few months before the event. During that time, there was a lot of nighttime work in the "elevator shafts" - IMO, Mossad agents planting the explosives (there is of course substantial evidence for this) - and Silverstein ended up making out like a bandit with his insurance proceeds.

    I am amazed. I can't immediately see any obvious flaws and BS! That's a first.

    Where does WTC 7 fit into that. Just a chance bonus?

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 11:12 pm GMT • 100 Words @CalDre Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been 767s. Their conclusion on this point has been disputed (e.g., see "Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 Truth WTC Speeds"). I don't know what planes were involved exactly but the official story says it was 767s and I have not yet been convinced otherwise. Regardless, a 757 is just as easily remote controlled.

    that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about UA 175 . And what is that? The supposed call from Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong to American Airlines on an Airfone? This could be easily faked. Bear in mind that, aside from the 19 cavedwellers, the other suspect is a CIA/Mossad joint op, meaning, the most sophisticated intelligence and black ops outfits in history. Thus, when exploring alternative explanations, you need to account for the capabilities of these agencies, not that of the proverbial Joe Shmoe.

    I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology didn't work satisfactorily. It's certainly possible they engaged in a suicide attack, but IMO unlikely given their behavior leading up to their mission.

    I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason to believe or deny that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which would deliver them to paradise. Do you? There is a useful article entitled "The Concept of Martyrdom in Islam" on the al-Islam website. The idea of martyrdom involes complete submission and devotion to God. Engaging in major sins immediately before dieing for God is absolutely non-sensical. Both strip clubs and alcohol are strictly forbidden in Islam.

    I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor . Ockham's Razos is a somewhat useful tiebreaker in scientific theories; it is wholly inapplicable to solving crimes.

    partly trained Arab pilots would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis would serve the plotters purposes adequately. This may be true in theory, but in practice, when one looks at the maneovers the planes underwent, it is questionable if even the most sophisticated pilots could have flown the planes as the official story requires. It is impossible that untrained civilians could have done so (and, of course, even if one were to apply Ockham's Razor, impossibile or exceedingly improbable theories are ruled out, the tiebreaker applies to multiple theories which equally explain the same phenomenon).

    Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false flag plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure of making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against Iraq. There was no connection to Saddam Hussein, it was entirely fabricated (and in a quite sophisticated manner). But if you read the PNAC (neo-cons) treatise "Rebuilding America's Defenses", they do make reference to a "Pearl-Harbor like attack" which would allow them to implement their agenda, which includes re-shaping the Middle East (for the benefit of Israel). These same PNAC authors, who wrote this treatise, were in power at the time of 9/11.

    If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure and therefore failure – actually worse than failure – so it is absurd to suppose that they would take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives – let alone WTC 7! – or risk remnants being found in the debris. I think it was important to their objective that the buildings collapse so that there was a large number of casualties as well as the desired "shock and awe" effect. And also I do not think pre-wiring the buildings was that risky: if they were caught (which they had no reason to believe, as they would have been responsible for the investigation, which they effectively managed to prevent - note that Cheney was one of the PNAC plotters/authors), they most likely have a backup story that the buildings were wired after the 1995 WTC bombing attack so that, if the building were at risk of collapse, they could bring it down safely, rather than risk the domino effect of having a large chunk of downtown Manhattan collapse.

    So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11? Clearly Israel and the Zionist neo-cons who took power 8 months before the event. Note also that control of the WTC was handed over to Zionist Jew Silverstein from the New York Port Authority only a few months before the event. During that time, there was a lot of nighttime work in the "elevator shafts" - IMO, Mossad agents planting the explosives (there is of course substantial evidence for this) - and Silverstein ended up making out like a bandit with his insurance proceeds.

    I was back on UA 175 difficulties and reflecting on the fakeability of a lot of calls (said by some to have been technically impossible I recall) when I saw how the most plausible version of your version must work out.

    UA 175 was always meant to crash somewhere after a real or apparent fight with the terrorists. (But how do you get up that fight to cover the diversion?) It's exactly the kind of distraction I would have planned into that op. Maybe the devout Islamists on that flight – or just one or two of them – knew that they were going to die (check night club CCTV:-) ) and maybe even knew that UA175 was a diversion in a bigger plan.

    Wow I think I have a new career for my next lifetime. Would you care to buy some shares in my FakeMarsLanding Inc float?

    • Replies: @CalDre I was back on UA 175 difficulties . Again I'm not sure what you are referring to. UA 175 was the one that crashed into the South Tower. Did you mean the one that crashed in Pennsylvania, UA 93?

    As to the phone calls, I would note, they are also entirely consistent with the stewardesses believing they were partaking in a drill. It is known a drill of planes being hijacked and flown into buildings was being conducted that day. In part this drill explanation is supported by the contention that the pilots, too, were forced to the back of a plane by a small man holding a box cutter. The pilot was a huge ex-military guy and a pilot should never leave the cockpit, particularly not to terrorists.

    As to WTC 7, it's anyone's guess what happened there. My guess is that UA 93 was meant to crash into that tower, but since it crashed in Pennsylvania, WTC 7 was left standing, but they hit the "Boom" button anyway, perhaps to hide the fact that it was pre-wired, perhaps because there was something in it they wanted destroyed, I don't have the answer, in large part because no proper investigation was ever conducted.

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

  213. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 11:19 pm GMT @Buzz Mohawk You apparently have trouble accepting an accomplished fact that contradicts your pathetic, childish idea of what is possible or was possible at that time.

    You must not have much aptitude for physics or engineering or any hard science. I grasped it when I was age ten in ways you still can't. It wasn't childhood wonder, as you assume. It was a real understanding of what was being done. It was, at age ten, beyond what you even possess now.

    No one who has an understanding of physics and engineering principles thinks as you do. Yet you write such an insightful sounding piece of armchair psychology.

    The Apollo program was so far beyond your comprehension that you just have to write crap like what you wrote to me. We are now half a century after the fact, and fools like you fall for this garbage.

    Pathetic.

    For whatever reason, maybe ones Ron describes here, a conspiracy theory about Apollo has been floated for decades. Scientifically illiterate fools fall for it.

    Yes, as Ron implies, these things might be created just to drag more probable conspiracies into the same mental swamp in the public mind.

    This one conspiracy theory you fell for lies squarely in the category of the blindingly stupid.

    Unless I have missed relevant prolegomena from this Anonymous I think you have grossly overreacted to what he/she actually wrote. In a tellingly emotional way in fact. QED?

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk No, no overreaction, and no QED. The "prolegomena" is all the mediocrity over the years making it obvious that humanity is neither aware of nor worthy of its own greatest accomplishments.

    I'm not just talking about Apollo now. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  214. CalDre says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 11:44 pm GMT • 200 Words @Wizard of Oz I was back on UA 175 difficulties and reflecting on the fakeability of a lot of calls (said by some to have been technically impossible I recall) when I saw how the most plausible version of your version must work out.

    UA 175 was always meant to crash somewhere after a real or apparent fight with the terrorists. (But how do you get up that fight to cover the diversion?) It's exactly the kind of distraction I would have planned into that op. Maybe the devout Islamists on that flight - or just one or two of them - knew that they were going to die (check night club CCTV:-) ) and maybe even knew that UA175 was a diversion in a bigger plan.

    Wow I think I have a new career for my next lifetime. Would you care to buy some shares in my FakeMarsLanding Inc float?

    I was back on UA 175 difficulties . Again I'm not sure what you are referring to. UA 175 was the one that crashed into the South Tower. Did you mean the one that crashed in Pennsylvania, UA 93?

    As to the phone calls, I would note, they are also entirely consistent with the stewardesses believing they were partaking in a drill. It is known a drill of planes being hijacked and flown into buildings was being conducted that day. In part this drill explanation is supported by the contention that the pilots, too, were forced to the back of a plane by a small man holding a box cutter. The pilot was a huge ex-military guy and a pilot should never leave the cockpit, particularly not to terrorists.

    As to WTC 7, it's anyone's guess what happened there. My guess is that UA 93 was meant to crash into that tower, but since it crashed in Pennsylvania, WTC 7 was left standing, but they hit the "Boom" button anyway, perhaps to hide the fact that it was pre-wired, perhaps because there was something in it they wanted destroyed, I don't have the answer, in large part because no proper investigation was ever conducted.

    Cheers

    • Replies: @NosytheDuke SEC evidence concerning massive fraud has been reported as having been destroyed in WTC7 , @Wizard of Oz Sorry did I get that wrong? Yes you guessed right about which plane I meant.

    Your answer that the charges had to be set off in WTC 7 to conceal the wiring is certainly not crazy but not very satisfactory. Ah, but yes, the fire that burned all day was set opportunistically after Flight 93 went AWOL.

    That leaves motive for including WTC 7 in the plot at all unless there was indeed something that had to hidden by destruction. Proof? Evidence?

    There were a lot of passenger calls from Flight 93 that I was referring to. Are you amongst those who deny the technical feasibility? One way or another there seems to be a problem there with the conspiracy versions.

    And what's the explanation for UA 93 not being adequately controlled by computer or remotely if it was intended for WTC 7. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  215. Dave37 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 1:13 am GMT @Bill Jones So no freedom of speech in your little world then.

    Sure, if I can have some revenge for annoying AHs.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. NosytheDuke says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 2:27 am GMT @CalDre I was back on UA 175 difficulties . Again I'm not sure what you are referring to. UA 175 was the one that crashed into the South Tower. Did you mean the one that crashed in Pennsylvania, UA 93?

    As to the phone calls, I would note, they are also entirely consistent with the stewardesses believing they were partaking in a drill. It is known a drill of planes being hijacked and flown into buildings was being conducted that day. In part this drill explanation is supported by the contention that the pilots, too, were forced to the back of a plane by a small man holding a box cutter. The pilot was a huge ex-military guy and a pilot should never leave the cockpit, particularly not to terrorists.

    As to WTC 7, it's anyone's guess what happened there. My guess is that UA 93 was meant to crash into that tower, but since it crashed in Pennsylvania, WTC 7 was left standing, but they hit the "Boom" button anyway, perhaps to hide the fact that it was pre-wired, perhaps because there was something in it they wanted destroyed, I don't have the answer, in large part because no proper investigation was ever conducted.

    Cheers

    SEC evidence concerning massive fraud has been reported as having been destroyed in WTC7

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz That needs a lot of fleshing out. All the evidence - originals, copies, backups - in one place? Maybe there is someone with proof quietly living off the pay offs for his blackmail. What would be really unlikely however is that no one has come out with anything like "I wondered why AB, the bossof the evidence management division was ordering all outside copies and backups to be destroyed and found his reasons to be very unsatisfactory". Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. Buzz Mohawk says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 3:22 am GMT @Wizard of Oz Unless I have missed relevant prolegomena from this Anonymous I think you have grossly overreacted to what he/she actually wrote. In a tellingly emotional way in fact. QED?

    No, no overreaction, and no QED. The "prolegomena" is all the mediocrity over the years making it obvious that humanity is neither aware of nor worthy of its own greatest accomplishments.

    I'm not just talking about Apollo now.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz Another amazing experience of finding something in UR which one might agree with - and you didn't even assault my slightly dodgy use of "prolegomena" with, for example, a sneering accusation that I seemed to think it meant "things previously said". Mind you I would have shown confident insouciance with the Humpty Dumpty response and diverted attention to the misuse of "protagonist". As to which I have long been hoping to say straight-faced to an actor "I loved your role as Deuteragonist/Tritoganist in......[The Erotic Adventures of Mickey Mouse or some other famous recovered masterpiece]". Where does one put the accent on protagonist do you think to further the pretence that one is a classical scholar? (Bonus question for 0 marks). Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. Marie says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 4:01 am GMT • 100 Words

    Literally every article I've ever read about conservatives and/or the conservative movement within the pages of the New Yorker – and I've read going back decades, unfortunately – has judiciously referenced 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics'.

    I mean, EVERY SINGLE article regarding Republicans, conservatives and/or opposition to leftism has the Hofstadter quote somewhere – it must be a staple on the J-School syllabi.

    It seems Prof. Hofstadter was something of an adherent to the Frankfurt School nonsense – Marxism-meets-dime-store-Freud being every New Yorker writer's stock in trade, of course

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  219. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 5:15 am GMT • 100 Words @Buzz Mohawk No, no overreaction, and no QED. The "prolegomena" is all the mediocrity over the years making it obvious that humanity is neither aware of nor worthy of its own greatest accomplishments.

    I'm not just talking about Apollo now.

    Another amazing experience of finding something in UR which one might agree with – and you didn't even assault my slightly dodgy use of "prolegomena" with, for example, a sneering accusation that I seemed to think it meant "things previously said". Mind you I would have shown confident insouciance with the Humpty Dumpty response and diverted attention to the misuse of "protagonist". As to which I have long been hoping to say straight-faced to an actor "I loved your role as Deuteragonist/Tritoganist in [The Erotic Adventures of Mickey Mouse or some other famous recovered masterpiece]". Where does one put the accent on protagonist do you think to further the pretence that one is a classical scholar? (Bonus question for 0 marks).

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 5:38 am GMT • 100 Words @CalDre I was back on UA 175 difficulties . Again I'm not sure what you are referring to. UA 175 was the one that crashed into the South Tower. Did you mean the one that crashed in Pennsylvania, UA 93?

    As to the phone calls, I would note, they are also entirely consistent with the stewardesses believing they were partaking in a drill. It is known a drill of planes being hijacked and flown into buildings was being conducted that day. In part this drill explanation is supported by the contention that the pilots, too, were forced to the back of a plane by a small man holding a box cutter. The pilot was a huge ex-military guy and a pilot should never leave the cockpit, particularly not to terrorists.

    As to WTC 7, it's anyone's guess what happened there. My guess is that UA 93 was meant to crash into that tower, but since it crashed in Pennsylvania, WTC 7 was left standing, but they hit the "Boom" button anyway, perhaps to hide the fact that it was pre-wired, perhaps because there was something in it they wanted destroyed, I don't have the answer, in large part because no proper investigation was ever conducted.

    Cheers

    Sorry did I get that wrong? Yes you guessed right about which plane I meant.

    Your answer that the charges had to be set off in WTC 7 to conceal the wiring is certainly not crazy but not very satisfactory. Ah, but yes, the fire that burned all day was set opportunistically after Flight 93 went AWOL.

    That leaves motive for including WTC 7 in the plot at all unless there was indeed something that had to hidden by destruction. Proof? Evidence?

    There were a lot of passenger calls from Flight 93 that I was referring to. Are you amongst those who deny the technical feasibility? One way or another there seems to be a problem there with the conspiracy versions.

    And what's the explanation for UA 93 not being adequately controlled by computer or remotely if it was intended for WTC 7.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    Proof? Evidence?
    Excuse me, under the previous American Pravda articles by Ron, I specifically asked you to outline the strongest evidence available that the government story on 9/11 is substantially true, i.e. Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda etcetera.

    In response, you wrote a long series of twaddles, idiotic non-sequitirs interspersed with vile ad hominem and never produced a single piece of evidence.

    NOTHING. There is a clear electronic record of this:`

    Here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-did-the-us-plan-a-nuclear-first-strike-against-russia-in-the-early-1960s/#comment-1532488

    and here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1550686

    I continually ask the shit eaters such as yourself what is the evidence for this government story. You never ever every provide any! In general, you end up falling back on the ridiculous position that the government story being the government story is proof!

    Well, eventually, I always corner you on this. Always. You end up having to walk away, but never have the minimal honesty to simply admit that you cannot produce any evidence because you have none.

    And then within a few days or so after that, you are back, quibbling with some other person asking them to produce evidence of something or other.

    I will reiterate. If you want to turn over a new leaf and be an honest, decent person, you should do one of two things:

    1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.
    2. Admit that you have no evidence.

    There are no other logical possibilities. What is it? 1. or 2.? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  221. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 5:53 am GMT • 100 Words @NosytheDuke SEC evidence concerning massive fraud has been reported as having been destroyed in WTC7

    That needs a lot of fleshing out. All the evidence – originals, copies, backups – in one place? Maybe there is someone with proof quietly living off the pay offs for his blackmail. What would be really unlikely however is that no one has come out with anything like "I wondered why AB, the bossof the evidence management division was ordering all outside copies and backups to be destroyed and found his reasons to be very unsatisfactory".

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 8:11 am GMT • 200 Words @CanSpeccy There must be hundreds of millions of words accessible on the Internet discussing the collapse of WTC Building 7. Why then foul up this discussion with the reiteration of arguments that anyone with an interest in the specifics of 9/11 will already know or can find out elsewhere?

    And why doesn't that apply precisely to just about everything you have posted and how come you can't see it – or think you can get away with others not noticing?

    And where have you complained about the constant reiteration of the symmetrical fall alleged impossibility, the particles of thermite, the steel couldn't have been melted nonsense (it wasn't melting that was the point), the forewarning to the BBC and, not least, the failure to account for the videos of the fires burning all day in WTC 7 and what that could have resulted in.

    My particular analysis of motive I have neither seen emphasised by anyone else nor answered on UR at all. Have you? Or seen it dealt with elsewhere as you imply?

    As it happens there is now an exception. Just about the first UR commenter to doubt something like the official 9/11 story that has not only a respectably functioning intellect but has deployed it on the issue. See posts by CalDre on this thread and my conversation with him.

    Acttually there is indeed a question of motive on WTC 7 (if it was demolished by explosives) left well unanswered by anything but the supposition that there was something within that needed to be destroyed of which there were no copies.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy WizOz, what are you on about? I've read your comment twice and can make no sense of it.

    But here's a question about 9/11 from esteemed Unz Review contributor Paul Craig Roberts:

    Who are the real conspiracy kooks, the majority who disbelieve the official lies or the minority who believe the official lies?
    True, his designation of the official story as lies is question begging, but it fairly places the onus of responsibility for establishing what happened on 9/11 with those who uphold the official conspiracy theory, which is now widely disbelieved.

    Time, in other words, for a real, competent, and open, forensic investigation. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  223. Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 8:45 am GMT • 200 Words @Wizard of Oz Sorry did I get that wrong? Yes you guessed right about which plane I meant.

    Your answer that the charges had to be set off in WTC 7 to conceal the wiring is certainly not crazy but not very satisfactory. Ah, but yes, the fire that burned all day was set opportunistically after Flight 93 went AWOL.

    That leaves motive for including WTC 7 in the plot at all unless there was indeed something that had to hidden by destruction. Proof? Evidence?

    There were a lot of passenger calls from Flight 93 that I was referring to. Are you amongst those who deny the technical feasibility? One way or another there seems to be a problem there with the conspiracy versions.

    And what's the explanation for UA 93 not being adequately controlled by computer or remotely if it was intended for WTC 7.

    Proof? Evidence?

    Excuse me, under the previous American Pravda articles by Ron, I specifically asked you to outline the strongest evidence available that the government story on 9/11 is substantially true, i.e. Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda etcetera.

    In response, you wrote a long series of twaddles, idiotic non-sequitirs interspersed with vile ad hominem and never produced a single piece of evidence.

    NOTHING. There is a clear electronic record of this:`

    Here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-did-the-us-plan-a-nuclear-first-strike-against-russia-in-the-early-1960s/#comment-1532488

    and here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1550686

    I continually ask the shit eaters such as yourself what is the evidence for this government story. You never ever every provide any! In general, you end up falling back on the ridiculous position that the government story being the government story is proof!

    Well, eventually, I always corner you on this. Always. You end up having to walk away, but never have the minimal honesty to simply admit that you cannot produce any evidence because you have none.

    And then within a few days or so after that, you are back, quibbling with some other person asking them to produce evidence of something or other.

    I will reiterate. If you want to turn over a new leaf and be an honest, decent person, you should do one of two things:

    1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.
    2. Admit that you have no evidence.

    There are no other logical possibilities. What is it? 1. or 2.?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz Fortunately I have missed most of your agitated comments directed at me, including the repetitious stuff which, contrary to what the preceding paragraphs led me to expect, proved to be just you quoting yourself.

    In the meantime I have come across someone who is almost unique in my experience of those whose reaction to the official reports [note that it is or ought to be plural] on 9/11 matters is to respond with scepticism as a minimum. CalDre with whom I have exchanged comments writes with intelligence and civility that makes rational conversation not only possible but agreeable.

    Your performances are, by contrast, a case for diagnosis. Are they attempts at persuasion by rational argument, or at persuasion at all? On the face of it the insulting language would rule that out unless it is understood as the kind of persuasion-by-bullying practised in the Gulag or Lubyanka.

    Well I don't get very excited by 9/11 matters and I get even less out of contemplating the frothings of those who do, so I shall take my leave of whoever or what "Jonathan Revusky" may be and confine any discussion of 9/11 matters to those who have demostrated at least a modicum of rational intelligence and civility. , @Wizard of Oz And BTW my querying reference to proof and evidence which you used as a hook for a generalised rant was about what might have been stored in WTC 7, without copies or backup, that needed to be destroyed. As I pointed out there were otherwise serious problems of motive raised by supposing WTC 7 was part of the plot. Do you condescend to detail? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  224. Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 2:53 pm GMT

    By the looks of thsee incredibly stupid comments on 9/11 and the Holocaust, it seems doubtful that the CIA would need to do anything more than accurately describe the fringe theories currently in circulation.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  225. CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 3:00 pm GMT • 100 Words @Wizard of Oz And why doesn't that apply precisely to just about everything you have posted and how come you can't see it - or think you can get away with others not noticing?

    And where have you complained about the constant reiteration of the symmetrical fall alleged impossibility, the particles of thermite, the steel couldn't have been melted nonsense (it wasn't melting that was the point), the forewarning to the BBC and, not least, the failure to account for the videos of the fires burning all day in WTC 7 and what that could have resulted in.

    My particular analysis of motive I have neither seen emphasised by anyone else nor answered on UR at all. Have you? Or seen it dealt with elsewhere as you imply?

    As it happens there is now an exception. Just about the first UR commenter to doubt something like the official 9/11 story that has not only a respectably functioning intellect but has deployed it on the issue. See posts by CalDre on this thread and my conversation with him.

    Acttually there is indeed a question of motive on WTC 7 (if it was demolished by explosives) left well unanswered by anything but the supposition that there was something within that needed to be destroyed of which there were no copies.

    WizOz, what are you on about? I've read your comment twice and can make no sense of it.

    But here's a question about 9/11 from esteemed Unz Review contributor Paul Craig Roberts:

    Who are the real conspiracy kooks, the majority who disbelieve the official lies or the minority who believe the official lies?

    True, his designation of the official story as lies is question begging, but it fairly places the onus of responsibility for establishing what happened on 9/11 with those who uphold the official conspiracy theory, which is now widely disbelieved.

    Time, in other words, for a real, competent, and open, forensic investigation.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz I hope you understood at least that I was saying your #174 comment was at best a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Beyond that i can't help beyond suggesting you have a good sleep, a cold shower, and try again.

    It's no use quoting PCR to me. Indeed calling him esteemed casts doubt on our sharing the same planet as I read quite a few of his effusions and eventually joined those who had written him down as a crank, and not even one from whom one could pick up useful or interesting facts or stimulating cogently reasoned ideas. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  226. Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 3:10 pm GMT • 200 Words

    1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.

    All of it. What kind of nonsense question is this? You can read the evidence in multiple places. And we already know what your response is to every single bit of evidence: "The Government faked it!"

    So if someone were to say "Osama Bin Laden admitted to planinng the attack on video," you would say "Bin Laden was a robot created by the CIA" or whatever your moronic theory is.

    If someone said "We know that Atta and the other hijackers were taking flight training and that they had meetings in Afghanistan planning the attacks," then you would say "They were rehearsing a play!" or something that is actually somewhat dumber than that.

    "There are no other logical possibilities. What is it? 1. or 2.?"

    Allow me to present a third alternative:

    3. Arguing with conspiracy theorists is a huge waste of time because they have no idea what they are talking about and are so ideologically blinded that they will never accept any evidence no matter how convincing and authoritative.

    See? Even in the meta-discussion of this conspiracy, your logic is flawed.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.
    All of it. What kind of nonsense question is this?
    Hey, shit eater, can't you read? I didn't say "all of it". I said outline the strongest evidence available. I worded it that way because I anticipate the shit eater response that... oh, there is just so much evidence that you can't possibly outline it all! So I just said, "outline the strongest evidence". NOT all of it .

    What is the strongest evidence available, in your opinion that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan by a bearded religious fanatic named Osama bin Laden?

    Anyway, asking for the evidence is not a "nonsense question". Well, it is if you're a shit eater, because if you're a shit eater, you eat up whatever bullshit they throw in your general direction, so they said it on the TV so it's true, and there is no need for any actual evidence.

    I understand the shit eater mentality.


    So if someone were to say "Osama Bin Laden admitted to planinng the attack on video,"
    Okay, is that your answer? Is that the strongest evidence available?
    If someone said "We know that Atta and the other hijackers were taking flight training and that they had meetings in Afghanistan planning the attacks,"
    Okay, that they were at the flight school is proof that they flew buildings in to skyscrapers. That's what you're saying? Okay, is that the strongest evidence available or is it the aforementioned videos?

    As for the meetings in Afghanistan, uhh, that is claimed. What is the proof of that? They took minutes of the meeting and we have the records? There's a recording? Or is it just that they claimed that these meetings took place and it's just an unsubstantiated claim?


    3. Arguing with conspiracy theorists is a huge waste of time because they have no idea what they are talking about and are so ideologically blinded that they will never accept any evidence no matter how convincing and authoritative.
    Well, that's not what's happening in these exchanges. What keeps happening is that I keep asking what the evidence is and nobody provides any.

    You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos are fake. But, in any case, if a plane flies into a building tomorrow on the other side of the world, in China say, I could immediately put up a video claiming that I made this happen. Would that be hard proof?

    And pointing to some guys who were in a flight school, therefore they hijacked the planes... this is not strong proof. In general, the proof cannot be equally consistent with the people people being patsies. It's like claiming that Oswald was in the vicinity there when the thing went down. Well, of course he was, he had to be because he was the patsy, so they could frame him. He couldn't be off in Timbuktu at the time, because then he'd have an alibi!

    You have to be able to claim the guys went to a flight school, and thus knew how to fly the plane, because otherwise the whole story is a non-starter.

    There is no proof of the story that withstands the laugh test. Anybody who has seriously looked into this knows that.

    Arguing with a shit eater is a waste of time, because when you ask them for the evidence for whatever bullshit they have gobbled up, they never concede that THEY SIMPLY HAVE NONE. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

  227. bunga says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 3:11 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The turning point was the beheadings last month of two US journalists by members of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or Isis. Once videos of their killings were posted on the internet by Isis, their deaths amounted to virtual public executions.
    Bill McInturff, a Republican-aligned pollster who along with a Democratic colleague conducts the closely watched Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, said the change in public opinion had been "sudden". That poll showed 61 per cent of respondents thought military action against Isis was in America's national interest." – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/arabs-rouhani-matthews/#sthash.xX4Cnzub.dpuf

    Do American warmongers need a theory? Anything will do. The sheeple will pass flatulence and think they are clearing the air .

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  228. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 4:38 pm GMT • 100 Words @CanSpeccy WizOz, what are you on about? I've read your comment twice and can make no sense of it.

    But here's a question about 9/11 from esteemed Unz Review contributor Paul Craig Roberts:

    Who are the real conspiracy kooks, the majority who disbelieve the official lies or the minority who believe the official lies?
    True, his designation of the official story as lies is question begging, but it fairly places the onus of responsibility for establishing what happened on 9/11 with those who uphold the official conspiracy theory, which is now widely disbelieved.

    Time, in other words, for a real, competent, and open, forensic investigation.

    I hope you understood at least that I was saying your #174 comment was at best a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Beyond that i can't help beyond suggesting you have a good sleep, a cold shower, and try again.

    It's no use quoting PCR to me. Indeed calling him esteemed casts doubt on our sharing the same planet as I read quite a few of his effusions and eventually joined those who had written him down as a crank, and not even one from whom one could pick up useful or interesting facts or stimulating cogently reasoned ideas.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    I was saying your #174 comment was at best a case of the pot calling the kettle black
    But you said it in five unintelligible paragraphs instead, perhaps to conceal that there was no logical basis to your claim.

    As for your contempt for Unz Review contributor, PCR, it makes one wonder why you hang around here so much. Are you, perhaps, one of Cass Sunstein's boys ? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  229. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 5:12 pm GMT • 200 Words @Jonathan Revusky
    Proof? Evidence?
    Excuse me, under the previous American Pravda articles by Ron, I specifically asked you to outline the strongest evidence available that the government story on 9/11 is substantially true, i.e. Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda etcetera.

    In response, you wrote a long series of twaddles, idiotic non-sequitirs interspersed with vile ad hominem and never produced a single piece of evidence.

    NOTHING. There is a clear electronic record of this:`

    Here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-did-the-us-plan-a-nuclear-first-strike-against-russia-in-the-early-1960s/#comment-1532488

    and here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1550686

    I continually ask the shit eaters such as yourself what is the evidence for this government story. You never ever every provide any! In general, you end up falling back on the ridiculous position that the government story being the government story is proof!

    Well, eventually, I always corner you on this. Always. You end up having to walk away, but never have the minimal honesty to simply admit that you cannot produce any evidence because you have none.

    And then within a few days or so after that, you are back, quibbling with some other person asking them to produce evidence of something or other.

    I will reiterate. If you want to turn over a new leaf and be an honest, decent person, you should do one of two things:

    1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.
    2. Admit that you have no evidence.

    There are no other logical possibilities. What is it? 1. or 2.?

    Fortunately I have missed most of your agitated comments directed at me, including the repetitious stuff which, contrary to what the preceding paragraphs led me to expect, proved to be just you quoting yourself.

    In the meantime I have come across someone who is almost unique in my experience of those whose reaction to the official reports [note that it is or ought to be plural] on 9/11 matters is to respond with scepticism as a minimum. CalDre with whom I have exchanged comments writes with intelligence and civility that makes rational conversation not only possible but agreeable.

    Your performances are, by contrast, a case for diagnosis. Are they attempts at persuasion by rational argument, or at persuasion at all? On the face of it the insulting language would rule that out unless it is understood as the kind of persuasion-by-bullying practised in the Gulag or Lubyanka.

    Well I don't get very excited by 9/11 matters and I get even less out of contemplating the frothings of those who do, so I shall take my leave of whoever or what "Jonathan Revusky" may be and confine any discussion of 9/11 matters to those who have demostrated at least a modicum of rational intelligence and civility.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    Fortunately I have missed most of your agitated comments directed at me,
    Uh huh, yeah right, except there is a problem with what you are saying. The problem is this: YOU ARE LYING YOUR ASS OFF.

    You did not fail to respond to my last posts because you "missed" my "agitated comments". You failed to respond because you were cornered and had no response. Everybody who was reading the exchange (possibly nobody or many people, I dunno...) knows this.

    Specifically, you tried the sophomoric trick of trying to claim that the proof of the government's story was that it was the government's story.

    I said no dice, you can't do that and you were out of bullets and walked away. That was here:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1550686

    The reason that this comment went with no reply from you was because you were cornered and could not reply.

    Or, if you can, fine. So it's just back to where were were at. Please outline the best available evidence for the US govt story (Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda etc.) or admit that there is no real evidence.

    so I shall take my leave of whoever or what "Jonathan Revusky" may be and confine any discussion of 9/11 matters to those who have demonstrated at least a modicum of rational intelligence and civility.
    TRANSLATION: "I will only debate with people who let me get away with murder in the debate. this "Jonathan Revusky" doesn't let me get away with this shit, like that the government's story is proof of the government's story so obviously I can't debate with him. Oh, I'll pretend that I don't debate with him because of his horrible personality, though, not because I am incapable of it..."

    The issue is obviously not my deplorable personality. The issue is that I posed the completely legitimate question of what is the best evidence available of the US govt story on 9/11. You obviously cannot reply because there is no evidence for the story and you are trying to blow smoke to avoid conceding that point. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  230. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 5:31 pm GMT • 100 Words @Jonathan Revusky
    Proof? Evidence?
    Excuse me, under the previous American Pravda articles by Ron, I specifically asked you to outline the strongest evidence available that the government story on 9/11 is substantially true, i.e. Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda etcetera.

    In response, you wrote a long series of twaddles, idiotic non-sequitirs interspersed with vile ad hominem and never produced a single piece of evidence.

    NOTHING. There is a clear electronic record of this:`

    Here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-did-the-us-plan-a-nuclear-first-strike-against-russia-in-the-early-1960s/#comment-1532488

    and here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1550686

    I continually ask the shit eaters such as yourself what is the evidence for this government story. You never ever every provide any! In general, you end up falling back on the ridiculous position that the government story being the government story is proof!

    Well, eventually, I always corner you on this. Always. You end up having to walk away, but never have the minimal honesty to simply admit that you cannot produce any evidence because you have none.

    And then within a few days or so after that, you are back, quibbling with some other person asking them to produce evidence of something or other.

    I will reiterate. If you want to turn over a new leaf and be an honest, decent person, you should do one of two things:

    1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.
    2. Admit that you have no evidence.

    There are no other logical possibilities. What is it? 1. or 2.?

    And BTW my querying reference to proof and evidence which you used as a hook for a generalised rant was about what might have been stored in WTC 7, without copies or backup, that needed to be destroyed. As I pointed out there were otherwise serious problems of motive raised by supposing WTC 7 was part of the plot. Do you condescend to detail?

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 5:43 pm GMT • 100 Words @Wizard of Oz I hope you understood at least that I was saying your #174 comment was at best a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Beyond that i can't help beyond suggesting you have a good sleep, a cold shower, and try again.

    It's no use quoting PCR to me. Indeed calling him esteemed casts doubt on our sharing the same planet as I read quite a few of his effusions and eventually joined those who had written him down as a crank, and not even one from whom one could pick up useful or interesting facts or stimulating cogently reasoned ideas.

    I was saying your #174 comment was at best a case of the pot calling the kettle black

    But you said it in five unintelligible paragraphs instead, perhaps to conceal that there was no logical basis to your claim.

    As for your contempt for Unz Review contributor, PCR, it makes one wonder why you hang around here so much. Are you, perhaps, one of Cass Sunstein's boys ?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    Are you, perhaps, one of Cass Sunstein's boys?
    As best I understand, this Wizard of Oz creep is some kind of elderly lawyer down in Australia. A real sleazebag shyster type lawyer, perhaps the Aussie equivalent of Alan Dershowitz.

    He has a certain bag of tricks that he uses to blow smoke. This guy is an absolutely disgusting individual and it's really nauseating to interact with him. Maybe it's just a waste of time because surely most everybody sees through this guy's charlatanry by now.

    My approach has just been to try to corner him into admitting that he has no evidence for the official 9/11 story. By now, he has tried every sophomoric trick, like claiming that the onus on me to prove something to him, or then claiming that the proof of the government story is the government story. Now, he is claiming that he won't respond because of my deplorable personality.

    It's like he has a bag of tricks that he goes through. "Oh, that one didn't work, so now I'll try this one..."

    The guy really is just disgusting. A real piece of shit. But regarding your Cass Sunstein allusion, I have no idea. It is hard to see why somebody would do what Wizard does here just on his own dime, with this level of persistence, if there was nothing in it for him. But I dunno. It's hard to fathom the psychology of some people. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  232. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 6:59 pm GMT @CanSpeccy But if you really want a short, clear, definitive, irrefutable and conclusive debunking of 9/11 Truther theories here it is :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

    I love it!

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 8:29 pm GMT • 300 Words @Wizard of Oz Fortunately I have missed most of your agitated comments directed at me, including the repetitious stuff which, contrary to what the preceding paragraphs led me to expect, proved to be just you quoting yourself.

    In the meantime I have come across someone who is almost unique in my experience of those whose reaction to the official reports [note that it is or ought to be plural] on 9/11 matters is to respond with scepticism as a minimum. CalDre with whom I have exchanged comments writes with intelligence and civility that makes rational conversation not only possible but agreeable.

    Your performances are, by contrast, a case for diagnosis. Are they attempts at persuasion by rational argument, or at persuasion at all? On the face of it the insulting language would rule that out unless it is understood as the kind of persuasion-by-bullying practised in the Gulag or Lubyanka.

    Well I don't get very excited by 9/11 matters and I get even less out of contemplating the frothings of those who do, so I shall take my leave of whoever or what "Jonathan Revusky" may be and confine any discussion of 9/11 matters to those who have demostrated at least a modicum of rational intelligence and civility.

    Fortunately I have missed most of your agitated comments directed at me,

    Uh huh, yeah right, except there is a problem with what you are saying. The problem is this: YOU ARE LYING YOUR ASS OFF.

    You did not fail to respond to my last posts because you "missed" my "agitated comments". You failed to respond because you were cornered and had no response. Everybody who was reading the exchange (possibly nobody or many people, I dunno ) knows this.

    Specifically, you tried the sophomoric trick of trying to claim that the proof of the government's story was that it was the government's story.

    I said no dice, you can't do that and you were out of bullets and walked away. That was here:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1550686

    The reason that this comment went with no reply from you was because you were cornered and could not reply.

    Or, if you can, fine. So it's just back to where were were at. Please outline the best available evidence for the US govt story (Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda etc.) or admit that there is no real evidence.

    so I shall take my leave of whoever or what "Jonathan Revusky" may be and confine any discussion of 9/11 matters to those who have demonstrated at least a modicum of rational intelligence and civility.

    TRANSLATION: "I will only debate with people who let me get away with murder in the debate. this "Jonathan Revusky" doesn't let me get away with this shit, like that the government's story is proof of the government's story so obviously I can't debate with him. Oh, I'll pretend that I don't debate with him because of his horrible personality, though, not because I am incapable of it "

    The issue is obviously not my deplorable personality. The issue is that I posed the completely legitimate question of what is the best evidence available of the US govt story on 9/11. You obviously cannot reply because there is no evidence for the story and you are trying to blow smoke to avoid conceding that point.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy Actually, Jonathan, WizOz is absolutely correct in identifying you - a critic of the official 9/11 story - as a crackpot conspiracy theorist. This is simply a matter of definition, as Ron Unz explains. CIA-inspired media usage has defined the questioning of official history as crackpot conspiracy theorizing.

    A crackpot conspiracy theory, so defined, may, of course, be entirely correct and it may be obviously correct to a normally intelligent person presented with the relevant evidence. But it is still consistent with current media usage to call it a crackpot conspiracy theory.

    Likewise, in accordance with current media usage, any official theory is correct because it is official, although at the same time it may be total bollocks.

    In fact, any theory that is quite consistently labelled a crackpot conspiracy theory by the media is almost certainly at least in part true, since otherwise failing institutions such as the New York Times and the PuffHo would not waste their diminishing capital of credibility by mocking it. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  234. Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 8:45 pm GMT • 600 Words @Boris
    1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.
    All of it. What kind of nonsense question is this? You can read the evidence in multiple places. And we already know what your response is to every single bit of evidence: "The Government faked it!"

    So if someone were to say "Osama Bin Laden admitted to planinng the attack on video," you would say "Bin Laden was a robot created by the CIA" or whatever your moronic theory is.

    If someone said "We know that Atta and the other hijackers were taking flight training and that they had meetings in Afghanistan planning the attacks," then you would say "They were rehearsing a play!" or something that is actually somewhat dumber than that.

    "There are no other logical possibilities. What is it? 1. or 2.?"

    Allow me to present a third alternative:

    3. Arguing with conspiracy theorists is a huge waste of time because they have no idea what they are talking about and are so ideologically blinded that they will never accept any evidence no matter how convincing and authoritative.

    See? Even in the meta-discussion of this conspiracy, your logic is flawed.

    1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.

    All of it. What kind of nonsense question is this?

    Hey, shit eater, can't you read? I didn't say "all of it". I said outline the strongest evidence available. I worded it that way because I anticipate the shit eater response that oh, there is just so much evidence that you can't possibly outline it all! So I just said, "outline the strongest evidence". NOT all of it .

    What is the strongest evidence available, in your opinion that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan by a bearded religious fanatic named Osama bin Laden?

    Anyway, asking for the evidence is not a "nonsense question". Well, it is if you're a shit eater, because if you're a shit eater, you eat up whatever bullshit they throw in your general direction, so they said it on the TV so it's true, and there is no need for any actual evidence.

    I understand the shit eater mentality.

    So if someone were to say "Osama Bin Laden admitted to planinng the attack on video,"

    Okay, is that your answer? Is that the strongest evidence available?

    [MORE]

    If someone said "We know that Atta and the other hijackers were taking flight training and that they had meetings in Afghanistan planning the attacks,"

    Okay, that they were at the flight school is proof that they flew buildings in to skyscrapers. That's what you're saying? Okay, is that the strongest evidence available or is it the aforementioned videos?

    As for the meetings in Afghanistan, uhh, that is claimed. What is the proof of that? They took minutes of the meeting and we have the records? There's a recording? Or is it just that they claimed that these meetings took place and it's just an unsubstantiated claim?

    3. Arguing with conspiracy theorists is a huge waste of time because they have no idea what they are talking about and are so ideologically blinded that they will never accept any evidence no matter how convincing and authoritative.

    Well, that's not what's happening in these exchanges. What keeps happening is that I keep asking what the evidence is and nobody provides any.

    You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos are fake. But, in any case, if a plane flies into a building tomorrow on the other side of the world, in China say, I could immediately put up a video claiming that I made this happen. Would that be hard proof?

    And pointing to some guys who were in a flight school, therefore they hijacked the planes this is not strong proof. In general, the proof cannot be equally consistent with the people people being patsies. It's like claiming that Oswald was in the vicinity there when the thing went down. Well, of course he was, he had to be because he was the patsy, so they could frame him. He couldn't be off in Timbuktu at the time, because then he'd have an alibi!

    You have to be able to claim the guys went to a flight school, and thus knew how to fly the plane, because otherwise the whole story is a non-starter.

    There is no proof of the story that withstands the laugh test. Anybody who has seriously looked into this knows that.

    Arguing with a shit eater is a waste of time, because when you ask them for the evidence for whatever bullshit they have gobbled up, they never concede that THEY SIMPLY HAVE NONE. • Replies: @Boris

    What is the strongest evidence available, in your opinion that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan by a bearded religious fanatic named Osama bin Laden?
    9/11 was a complicated plot so asking for the "strongest evidnce" doesn't even make sense.

    We have video and records of guys in an organization that wanted to commit terrorism in America arriving in America, researching how to fly commercial airplanes, showing up at the airport on 9/11 and boarding the flights. We have recordings of the hijackers picked up by ATC. We have recordings of flight attendants calling and describing stabbings on board, and lots more calls from passengers in flight describing what is happening. We have video of the Twin Towers being hit by airplanes. Then the guy in charge of everything puts out a video about how great a job they did.

    Yes, it would be possible to fake all of that (well, not the planes hitting the buildings). And yet no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that it was. Hm.

    You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos are fake.
    Far more experts think it's real. I guess they are in on it?
    Well, of course he was, he had to be because he was the patsy, so they could frame him.
    Well now you want to argue your stupid conspiracy theory. See, any evidence that is presented can be made into fit into some alternate theory. But those alternate theories never seem to have any evidence backing them up.

    I'm looking forward* to your discussion of the phone calls from the plane and how they were made by CIA actors and the family members of the dead are really lizard replicants and holograms and nukes and on and on and on.


    *I am not actually looking forward to this. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  235. Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 9:05 pm GMT • 200 Words @CanSpeccy
    I was saying your #174 comment was at best a case of the pot calling the kettle black
    But you said it in five unintelligible paragraphs instead, perhaps to conceal that there was no logical basis to your claim.

    As for your contempt for Unz Review contributor, PCR, it makes one wonder why you hang around here so much. Are you, perhaps, one of Cass Sunstein's boys ?

    Are you, perhaps, one of Cass Sunstein's boys?

    As best I understand, this Wizard of Oz creep is some kind of elderly lawyer down in Australia. A real sleazebag shyster type lawyer, perhaps the Aussie equivalent of Alan Dershowitz.

    He has a certain bag of tricks that he uses to blow smoke. This guy is an absolutely disgusting individual and it's really nauseating to interact with him. Maybe it's just a waste of time because surely most everybody sees through this guy's charlatanry by now.

    My approach has just been to try to corner him into admitting that he has no evidence for the official 9/11 story. By now, he has tried every sophomoric trick, like claiming that the onus on me to prove something to him, or then claiming that the proof of the government story is the government story. Now, he is claiming that he won't respond because of my deplorable personality.

    It's like he has a bag of tricks that he goes through. "Oh, that one didn't work, so now I'll try this one "

    The guy really is just disgusting. A real piece of shit. But regarding your Cass Sunstein allusion, I have no idea. It is hard to see why somebody would do what Wizard does here just on his own dime, with this level of persistence, if there was nothing in it for him. But I dunno. It's hard to fathom the psychology of some people.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy Oh come'n. The Wiz isn't as bad as Dershowitz.

    Thing is though, there's probably not much difference between a lawyer and a professional troll.

    Both are annoying and mostly a waste of time. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  236. CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 9:23 pm GMT • 200 Words @Jonathan Revusky
    Fortunately I have missed most of your agitated comments directed at me,
    Uh huh, yeah right, except there is a problem with what you are saying. The problem is this: YOU ARE LYING YOUR ASS OFF.

    You did not fail to respond to my last posts because you "missed" my "agitated comments". You failed to respond because you were cornered and had no response. Everybody who was reading the exchange (possibly nobody or many people, I dunno...) knows this.

    Specifically, you tried the sophomoric trick of trying to claim that the proof of the government's story was that it was the government's story.

    I said no dice, you can't do that and you were out of bullets and walked away. That was here:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1550686

    The reason that this comment went with no reply from you was because you were cornered and could not reply.

    Or, if you can, fine. So it's just back to where were were at. Please outline the best available evidence for the US govt story (Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda etc.) or admit that there is no real evidence.

    so I shall take my leave of whoever or what "Jonathan Revusky" may be and confine any discussion of 9/11 matters to those who have demonstrated at least a modicum of rational intelligence and civility.
    TRANSLATION: "I will only debate with people who let me get away with murder in the debate. this "Jonathan Revusky" doesn't let me get away with this shit, like that the government's story is proof of the government's story so obviously I can't debate with him. Oh, I'll pretend that I don't debate with him because of his horrible personality, though, not because I am incapable of it..."

    The issue is obviously not my deplorable personality. The issue is that I posed the completely legitimate question of what is the best evidence available of the US govt story on 9/11. You obviously cannot reply because there is no evidence for the story and you are trying to blow smoke to avoid conceding that point.

    Actually, Jonathan, WizOz is absolutely correct in identifying you - a critic of the official 9/11 story - as a crackpot conspiracy theorist. This is simply a matter of definition, as Ron Unz explains. CIA-inspired media usage has defined the questioning of official history as crackpot conspiracy theorizing.

    A crackpot conspiracy theory, so defined, may, of course, be entirely correct and it may be obviously correct to a normally intelligent person presented with the relevant evidence. But it is still consistent with current media usage to call it a crackpot conspiracy theory.

    Likewise, in accordance with current media usage, any official theory is correct because it is official, although at the same time it may be total bollocks.

    In fact, any theory that is quite consistently labelled a crackpot conspiracy theory by the media is almost certainly at least in part true, since otherwise failing institutions such as the New York Times and the PuffHo would not waste their diminishing capital of credibility by mocking it.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz Well you don't rave like the frothing Revusky so I shall mention here an interesting link to follow and that is Wikipedia on thermite. I don't remember anything about thermite reactions at least as such from 6th form Chemistry and now realise that aluminium is frequently at the core of thermite reactions, thereby lending support to the recently expounded theories of heating, and explosions, which would correct the official versions. (There was about 30 tons of aluminium in each plane from memory). I couldn't see anything about a thermite connection to demolitions. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. Conspiracy Theories Are True | Bill Totten's Weblog says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 9:53 pm GMT

    [ ] {2} http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-the-cia-invented-conspiracy-theories/ [ ]

  238. ogunsiron says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 9:54 pm GMT @5371 This is a good piece which deserved an acceptable level of mental hygiene in the comment section. Unfortunately, two of the first nine comments are from morons spamming their "no lunar landing" drivel. In all probability the "no nuclear weapons" clowns will also be here imminently. Oh well, a delicious sweet dish will attract a fly as much as a gourmet.

    In all probability the "no nuclear weapons" clowns will also be here imminently
    --
    The flat earth guys might beat them to it.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 11:12 pm GMT • 300 Words @Jonathan Revusky
    1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.
    All of it. What kind of nonsense question is this?
    Hey, shit eater, can't you read? I didn't say "all of it". I said outline the strongest evidence available. I worded it that way because I anticipate the shit eater response that... oh, there is just so much evidence that you can't possibly outline it all! So I just said, "outline the strongest evidence". NOT all of it .

    What is the strongest evidence available, in your opinion that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan by a bearded religious fanatic named Osama bin Laden?

    Anyway, asking for the evidence is not a "nonsense question". Well, it is if you're a shit eater, because if you're a shit eater, you eat up whatever bullshit they throw in your general direction, so they said it on the TV so it's true, and there is no need for any actual evidence.

    I understand the shit eater mentality.


    So if someone were to say "Osama Bin Laden admitted to planinng the attack on video,"
    Okay, is that your answer? Is that the strongest evidence available?
    If someone said "We know that Atta and the other hijackers were taking flight training and that they had meetings in Afghanistan planning the attacks,"
    Okay, that they were at the flight school is proof that they flew buildings in to skyscrapers. That's what you're saying? Okay, is that the strongest evidence available or is it the aforementioned videos?

    As for the meetings in Afghanistan, uhh, that is claimed. What is the proof of that? They took minutes of the meeting and we have the records? There's a recording? Or is it just that they claimed that these meetings took place and it's just an unsubstantiated claim?


    3. Arguing with conspiracy theorists is a huge waste of time because they have no idea what they are talking about and are so ideologically blinded that they will never accept any evidence no matter how convincing and authoritative.
    Well, that's not what's happening in these exchanges. What keeps happening is that I keep asking what the evidence is and nobody provides any.

    You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos are fake. But, in any case, if a plane flies into a building tomorrow on the other side of the world, in China say, I could immediately put up a video claiming that I made this happen. Would that be hard proof?

    And pointing to some guys who were in a flight school, therefore they hijacked the planes... this is not strong proof. In general, the proof cannot be equally consistent with the people people being patsies. It's like claiming that Oswald was in the vicinity there when the thing went down. Well, of course he was, he had to be because he was the patsy, so they could frame him. He couldn't be off in Timbuktu at the time, because then he'd have an alibi!

    You have to be able to claim the guys went to a flight school, and thus knew how to fly the plane, because otherwise the whole story is a non-starter.

    There is no proof of the story that withstands the laugh test. Anybody who has seriously looked into this knows that.

    Arguing with a shit eater is a waste of time, because when you ask them for the evidence for whatever bullshit they have gobbled up, they never concede that THEY SIMPLY HAVE NONE.

    What is the strongest evidence available, in your opinion that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan by a bearded religious fanatic named Osama bin Laden?

    9/11 was a complicated plot so asking for the "strongest evidnce" doesn't even make sense.

    We have video and records of guys in an organization that wanted to commit terrorism in America arriving in America, researching how to fly commercial airplanes, showing up at the airport on 9/11 and boarding the flights. We have recordings of the hijackers picked up by ATC. We have recordings of flight attendants calling and describing stabbings on board, and lots more calls from passengers in flight describing what is happening. We have video of the Twin Towers being hit by airplanes. Then the guy in charge of everything puts out a video about how great a job they did.

    Yes, it would be possible to fake all of that (well, not the planes hitting the buildings). And yet no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that it was. Hm.

    You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos are fake.

    Far more experts think it's real. I guess they are in on it?

    Well, of course he was, he had to be because he was the patsy, so they could frame him.

    Well now you want to argue your stupid conspiracy theory. See, any evidence that is presented can be made into fit into some alternate theory. But those alternate theories never seem to have any evidence backing them up.

    I'm looking forward* to your discussion of the phone calls from the plane and how they were made by CIA actors and the family members of the dead are really lizard replicants and holograms and nukes and on and on and on.

    [MORE]
    *I am not actually looking forward to this.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    9/11 was a complicated plot so asking for the "strongest evidnce" doesn't even make sense.
    TRANSLATION OF SHIT-EATER SPEAK: "I have no real evidence so I'm going to pretend that the other person is being unreasonable when he asks for some.
    We have video and records of guys in an organization that wanted to commit terrorism in America...
    Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.

    Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically? It seems to me that you're just repeating the story as proof of the story, which is, of course, what shit eaters do when you ask them for proof of whatever bullshit.


    Yes, it would be possible to fake all of that (well, not the planes hitting the buildings). And yet no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that it was. Hm.
    Oh, you no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that any of this is fake. Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this. And, yes, they have put forward VERY convincing evidence that basically ALL OF IT is fake! In particular, the alleged phone calls from the planes that detail the official narrative, these are very problematic, not technically possible even.

    In any case, a video of a plane hitting a building is not proof that some bearded guy in Afghanistan caused it to happen. By that reasoning, the Zapruder film of Kennedy being shot is proof that Oswald did it. It is not.

    Also, the video of a plane hitting a building is not proof that this is the cause of the building's subsequent implosion. Particularly problematic is the third building WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, yet imploded in a perfectly symmetrical straight-down fashion that can only be achieved via controlled demolition.

    You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos are fake.
    Far more experts think it's real. I guess they are in on it?
    Which experts think that the Bin Laden "confession videos" are real? Can you name any of these "experts"?

    In any case, anybody can say anything on a video. It's not very strong proof. I can put up a video on youtube saying I did it.


    Well now you want to argue your stupid conspiracy theory. See, any evidence that is presented can be made into fit into some alternate theory. But those alternate theories never seem to have any evidence backing them up.
    The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building was not hit by a plane even. But, obviously, once you recognize that one building was pre-rigged for controlled demolition, it becomes fairly obvious that all three were.

    In any case, I did not actually propose any alternative story. I requested that you and whatever other shit eaters tell me what they think the strongest evidence for the official story is.
    There simply is not very much. It's stuff like somebody says they got a phone call from a plane in which the person told them that such-and-such had happened. Fine, I could say I got a phone call. There are people who will say anything for a few bucks.

    I could put up a video saying I did it.

    When you look at what you are presenting as evidence, it's very very weak. There's basically nothing there.

    Meanwhile, the physical evidence, that the collision of a single airliner with a building the size of WTC1 or WTC2 is simply not going to cause what then happened. A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going to cause the latter to disintegrate.

    And why a third building that is not even hit by a plane should disintegrate as a result, this really only has one explanation, which is that the building in question was prerigged with explosives.

    And that is why there are over 2000 professional architects and engineers who have signed the Architechts and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition calling for a new investigation. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  240. Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 11:49 pm GMT

    1. Demand evidence.
    2. Call people "shit eaters" until they get sick of you and leave.
    3. Declare victory!

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  241. CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 12:05 am GMT @Jonathan Revusky
    Are you, perhaps, one of Cass Sunstein's boys?
    As best I understand, this Wizard of Oz creep is some kind of elderly lawyer down in Australia. A real sleazebag shyster type lawyer, perhaps the Aussie equivalent of Alan Dershowitz.

    He has a certain bag of tricks that he uses to blow smoke. This guy is an absolutely disgusting individual and it's really nauseating to interact with him. Maybe it's just a waste of time because surely most everybody sees through this guy's charlatanry by now.

    My approach has just been to try to corner him into admitting that he has no evidence for the official 9/11 story. By now, he has tried every sophomoric trick, like claiming that the onus on me to prove something to him, or then claiming that the proof of the government story is the government story. Now, he is claiming that he won't respond because of my deplorable personality.

    It's like he has a bag of tricks that he goes through. "Oh, that one didn't work, so now I'll try this one..."

    The guy really is just disgusting. A real piece of shit. But regarding your Cass Sunstein allusion, I have no idea. It is hard to see why somebody would do what Wizard does here just on his own dime, with this level of persistence, if there was nothing in it for him. But I dunno. It's hard to fathom the psychology of some people.

    Oh come'n. The Wiz isn't as bad as Dershowitz.

    Thing is though, there's probably not much difference between a lawyer and a professional troll.

    Both are annoying and mostly a waste of time.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    Oh come'n. The Wiz isn't as bad as Dershowitz.
    Well, probably not, but that would mostly be because he lacks the talent.

    I mean one thing that is clear about this Wizard is that this guy is really really stupid. I mean, you ask him for proof of the government story and he tells you that the government story is proof of the government story.

    Of course, Alan Dershowitz would make the same argument basically, but it would be masked in a more clever way. The Wizard just openly tells you that the proof of the government story is that it's the government story. Sheesh, what a moron...

    Thing is though, there's probably not much difference between a lawyer and a professional troll.
    Well, he apparently really is a lawyer down in Australia. That is what he has said, and I believe it is true. , @NosytheDuke The Wiz is a fraud and a troll. All puffery and no pastry. Not worth your time. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  242. BobFromTheHills says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 12:31 am GMT • 300 Words

    We accept the principle of cross examination when the government charges someone with a crime and the case goes to court. What about if the case never makes it court? A crime occurs, but the life of the accused is snatched away before a trial can commence. In those situations, if the crime is serious enough, the government usually undertakes an investigation and issues a report which contains the same evidence that would have been used in court.

    We saw that with president Kennedys assassination, and we saw that with 911 attacks. In both cases, the accused were dead before a trial ever started. No accused, no trial. No trial, no cross examination. Just a report.

    And we're supposed to trust the report. Believe the report. The report knows all.

    But why?

    Just because there's no trial doesn't mean there can't be a cross examination of the states evidence. The only difference is that the evidence has been released in a report instead of a court trial. Why is this evidence not a fit target for cross examination, especially by people possessing relevant competencies? Why is that delegated to crazy, conspiracy thinking?

    Without cross examination, the government has not legitimately proven it's case. Without that challenge, we only have half the story. Criminal trials, the Constitution, and justice itself becomes a farce. If the accused were to conveniently die before the trial, that also conveniently negates the need to share the evidence with anyone. The government can then frame the case and generate the proper presentation, to fix the light in order to cast the shadows and manufacture the perceptions it wants.

    Conspiracy Theorists are simply people who have the temerity to point this out and follow through with a cross examination.

    If the government itself committed a crime (or a cabal within it), how would you know?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    We accept the principle of cross examination when the government charges someone with a crime and the case goes to court.
    Yeah, this is a very important point you make actually. For example, as far as I can tell, none of the testimony provided that established the official government story on 9/11 was ever subjected to any sort of adversarial cross-examination. Somebody says they got a phone call from a plane and therefore it's true.

    Or for example, somebody in this thread says that there are all these "experts" who say that whatever Bin Laden video is authentic. But, as far as I can tell, these are just CIA connected "experts" saying: "Yep, the video is real." And they're not saying it under oath, under penalty of perjury or anything. And again, no cross-examination....

    So, some guy who looks vaguely like Bin Laden is in a video chortling with glee, saying he made this happen.

    Or somebody says that there was a meeting in Afghanistan in which the attacks were discussed. How do we know this? Oh, that's in the report... It always boils down to the notion that the government story is true because it's the government story.

    I'm not a lawyer but I think the technical term in jurisprudence for all this level of "evidence" is that it's just "hearsay". Statements that aren't under oath and not subjected to any cross-examination... just hearsay...

    And on the basis of this, we launched a war on the other side of the world and caused the deaths of so many people. Just some cock-and-bull story for which there is no evidence whatsoever. One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry.

    If the accused were to conveniently die before the trial, that also conveniently negates the need to share the evidence with anyone
    Well, yeah... actually, in these Deep State operations, the patsies are pretty much invariably killed. And then, of course, the government can claim whatever it wants basically. That's how it works... Of course... Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  243. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 12:49 am GMT • 100 Words @CanSpeccy Actually, Jonathan, WizOz is absolutely correct in identifying you - a critic of the official 9/11 story - as a crackpot conspiracy theorist. This is simply a matter of definition, as Ron Unz explains. CIA-inspired media usage has defined the questioning of official history as crackpot conspiracy theorizing.

    A crackpot conspiracy theory, so defined, may, of course, be entirely correct and it may be obviously correct to a normally intelligent person presented with the relevant evidence. But it is still consistent with current media usage to call it a crackpot conspiracy theory.

    Likewise, in accordance with current media usage, any official theory is correct because it is official, although at the same time it may be total bollocks.

    In fact, any theory that is quite consistently labelled a crackpot conspiracy theory by the media is almost certainly at least in part true, since otherwise failing institutions such as the New York Times and the PuffHo would not waste their diminishing capital of credibility by mocking it.

    Well you don't rave like the frothing Revusky so I shall mention here an interesting link to follow and that is Wikipedia on thermite. I don't remember anything about thermite reactions at least as such from 6th form Chemistry and now realise that aluminium is frequently at the core of thermite reactions, thereby lending support to the recently expounded theories of heating, and explosions, which would correct the official versions. (There was about 30 tons of aluminium in each plane from memory). I couldn't see anything about a thermite connection to demolitions.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    I don't remember anything about thermite reactions at least as such from 6th form Chemistry and now realise that aluminium is frequently at the core of thermite reactions, thereby lending support to the recently expounded theories of heating, and explosions, which would correct the official versions.
    Yes, either your ignorance is profound, or your intent to divert the discussion into a nonsensical channel is exposed.

    Bulk aluminum doesn't ignite in a building fire. According to one source, aluminum must be vaporized before it will burn and the boiling point of aluminum is 3,986 Farenheit, whereas the adiabatic flame temperature of Kerosene in air, at around 3597 Farenheit, is 400 degrees lower. Moreover, the jet fuel fires in the Twin Towers would likely have burned at considerably lower temperatures due to oxygen supply limitations.

    Aluminum burns readily in a thermitic compound comprising aluminum in a finely divided form intimately mixed with an oxidizer, usually iron oxide. In the process of combustion aluminum is oxidized, while the iron oxide is reduced to pure molten iron, which will be found in the reaction residue in the form of iron microspheres, just as were abundant in the ash collected in the vicinity of the Twin Towers.

    Among the best authorities on thermite is the National Institute of Standards, or NIST, the non-governmental body hired to "explain" the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. In the past, NIST worked closely with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on the development of explosive nanothermites .

    Oddly, it apparently never occurred to the NIST investigators of the collapse of three WTC buildings that explosives such as thermite, a material long used in controlled building demolitions , might have been involved in the perfect implosion of three WTC buildings. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  244. Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 1:06 am GMT • 700 Words @Boris
    What is the strongest evidence available, in your opinion that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan by a bearded religious fanatic named Osama bin Laden?
    9/11 was a complicated plot so asking for the "strongest evidnce" doesn't even make sense.

    We have video and records of guys in an organization that wanted to commit terrorism in America arriving in America, researching how to fly commercial airplanes, showing up at the airport on 9/11 and boarding the flights. We have recordings of the hijackers picked up by ATC. We have recordings of flight attendants calling and describing stabbings on board, and lots more calls from passengers in flight describing what is happening. We have video of the Twin Towers being hit by airplanes. Then the guy in charge of everything puts out a video about how great a job they did.

    Yes, it would be possible to fake all of that (well, not the planes hitting the buildings). And yet no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that it was. Hm.

    You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos are fake.
    Far more experts think it's real. I guess they are in on it?
    Well, of course he was, he had to be because he was the patsy, so they could frame him.
    Well now you want to argue your stupid conspiracy theory. See, any evidence that is presented can be made into fit into some alternate theory. But those alternate theories never seem to have any evidence backing them up.

    I'm looking forward* to your discussion of the phone calls from the plane and how they were made by CIA actors and the family members of the dead are really lizard replicants and holograms and nukes and on and on and on.


    *I am not actually looking forward to this.

    9/11 was a complicated plot so asking for the "strongest evidnce" doesn't even make sense.

    TRANSLATION OF SHIT-EATER SPEAK: "I have no real evidence so I'm going to pretend that the other person is being unreasonable when he asks for some.

    We have video and records of guys in an organization that wanted to commit terrorism in America

    Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.

    Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically? It seems to me that you're just repeating the story as proof of the story, which is, of course, what shit eaters do when you ask them for proof of whatever bullshit.

    Yes, it would be possible to fake all of that (well, not the planes hitting the buildings). And yet no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that it was. Hm.

    Oh, you no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that any of this is fake. Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this. And, yes, they have put forward VERY convincing evidence that basically ALL OF IT is fake! In particular, the alleged phone calls from the planes that detail the official narrative, these are very problematic, not technically possible even.

    In any case, a video of a plane hitting a building is not proof that some bearded guy in Afghanistan caused it to happen. By that reasoning, the Zapruder film of Kennedy being shot is proof that Oswald did it. It is not.

    Also, the video of a plane hitting a building is not proof that this is the cause of the building's subsequent implosion. Particularly problematic is the third building WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, yet imploded in a perfectly symmetrical straight-down fashion that can only be achieved via controlled demolition.

    You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos are fake.

    Far more experts think it's real. I guess they are in on it?

    Which experts think that the Bin Laden "confession videos" are real? Can you name any of these "experts"?

    In any case, anybody can say anything on a video. It's not very strong proof. I can put up a video on youtube saying I did it.

    Well now you want to argue your stupid conspiracy theory. See, any evidence that is presented can be made into fit into some alternate theory. But those alternate theories never seem to have any evidence backing them up.

    The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building was not hit by a plane even. But, obviously, once you recognize that one building was pre-rigged for controlled demolition, it becomes fairly obvious that all three were.

    In any case, I did not actually propose any alternative story. I requested that you and whatever other shit eaters tell me what they think the strongest evidence for the official story is.
    There simply is not very much. It's stuff like somebody says they got a phone call from a plane in which the person told them that such-and-such had happened. Fine, I could say I got a phone call. There are people who will say anything for a few bucks.

    I could put up a video saying I did it.

    When you look at what you are presenting as evidence, it's very very weak. There's basically nothing there.

    Meanwhile, the physical evidence, that the collision of a single airliner with a building the size of WTC1 or WTC2 is simply not going to cause what then happened. A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going to cause the latter to disintegrate.

    And why a third building that is not even hit by a plane should disintegrate as a result, this really only has one explanation, which is that the building in question was prerigged with explosives.

    And that is why there are over 2000 professional architects and engineers who have signed the Architechts and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition calling for a new investigation.

    • Replies: @Boris
    Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.
    I am aware of that particular fallacy, fuckface.
    Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically?
    Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails. And etc. etc. etc.

    Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this.
    Yes, there is a vast circle jerk of conspiracy theorists.

    In particular, the alleged phone calls from the planes that detail the official narrative, these are very problematic, not technically possible even.
    Not technically possible? So the whole Airfone ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfone ) business was faked for years in anticipation of the deception? Our government overlords have a great deal of foresight. And what evidence is there that the calls were faked? The Fake Calls theory is one of the dumbest of those associated with truthers, so it doesn't surprise me to find that you are an adherent.

    The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building was not hit by a plane even.
    Aside from various non-experts claiming that the collapse "looked like a controlled demolition" there is no evidence for this theory. No explosives found. No wires found. Nothing. But you are already at the "no reasonable doubt" stage? What a deep thinker you are!
    A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going to cause the latter to disintegrate.
    Evidence for this statement? Your feelings? Not very scientific, fuckface. , @Incitatus "The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building was not hit by a plane even. But, obviously, once you recognize that one building was pre-rigged for controlled demolition, it becomes fairly obvious that all three were."

    None dispute 9/11 was a conspiracy, but who was in it? Nineteen hijackers trained in Afghanistan and funded by Gulf money (the govt story)? The Bush administration? Some other govt? Why?

    You've obviously done a great deal of research and conclude (as you say) all WTC towers were intentionally demolished. Please share your theory. If it was a scripted event:

    • Why did WT 1 (the first tower hit) fall after WT 2? Did conspirators mix up demo timing?
    • Why did they bother to take down WT 7? Wouldn't the lack of aerial impact reveal demo and conspiracy?
    • How did conspirators mine 240 exterior columns on each office floor of WT 1 & 2 (±50,000 locations) without detection? Central core columns? Freestanding columns in public view at grade? How was it concealed from building tenants, management, maintenance staff, visitors, CoNY building inspectors, supply services, etc? And the same in WTC 7?
    • Architects and engineers from Minoru Yamasaki & Associates, Emery Roth & Sons, Worthington Skilling Helle & Jackson, Joseph R. Loring & Assoc, Jaros Blum & Bolles, and the numerous other firms responsible for the WTC don't appear to be part of ae911truth. Are they part of the conspiracy? Are WTC building contractors and subcontractors part of the conspiracy? Building tenants?
    • How could the same administration that ignored 9/11 warnings, bungled Katrina and screwed-up Iraq 2003 pull off such a complex, faultless conspiracy? Why have no insiders spilled the tale?

    I'm on the fence. I'd really like to know. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  245. Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 2:05 am GMT • 300 Words @Jonathan Revusky
    9/11 was a complicated plot so asking for the "strongest evidnce" doesn't even make sense.
    TRANSLATION OF SHIT-EATER SPEAK: "I have no real evidence so I'm going to pretend that the other person is being unreasonable when he asks for some.
    We have video and records of guys in an organization that wanted to commit terrorism in America...
    Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.

    Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically? It seems to me that you're just repeating the story as proof of the story, which is, of course, what shit eaters do when you ask them for proof of whatever bullshit.


    Yes, it would be possible to fake all of that (well, not the planes hitting the buildings). And yet no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that it was. Hm.
    Oh, you no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that any of this is fake. Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this. And, yes, they have put forward VERY convincing evidence that basically ALL OF IT is fake! In particular, the alleged phone calls from the planes that detail the official narrative, these are very problematic, not technically possible even.

    In any case, a video of a plane hitting a building is not proof that some bearded guy in Afghanistan caused it to happen. By that reasoning, the Zapruder film of Kennedy being shot is proof that Oswald did it. It is not.

    Also, the video of a plane hitting a building is not proof that this is the cause of the building's subsequent implosion. Particularly problematic is the third building WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, yet imploded in a perfectly symmetrical straight-down fashion that can only be achieved via controlled demolition.

    You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos are fake.
    Far more experts think it's real. I guess they are in on it?
    Which experts think that the Bin Laden "confession videos" are real? Can you name any of these "experts"?

    In any case, anybody can say anything on a video. It's not very strong proof. I can put up a video on youtube saying I did it.


    Well now you want to argue your stupid conspiracy theory. See, any evidence that is presented can be made into fit into some alternate theory. But those alternate theories never seem to have any evidence backing them up.
    The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building was not hit by a plane even. But, obviously, once you recognize that one building was pre-rigged for controlled demolition, it becomes fairly obvious that all three were.

    In any case, I did not actually propose any alternative story. I requested that you and whatever other shit eaters tell me what they think the strongest evidence for the official story is.
    There simply is not very much. It's stuff like somebody says they got a phone call from a plane in which the person told them that such-and-such had happened. Fine, I could say I got a phone call. There are people who will say anything for a few bucks.

    I could put up a video saying I did it.

    When you look at what you are presenting as evidence, it's very very weak. There's basically nothing there.

    Meanwhile, the physical evidence, that the collision of a single airliner with a building the size of WTC1 or WTC2 is simply not going to cause what then happened. A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going to cause the latter to disintegrate.

    And why a third building that is not even hit by a plane should disintegrate as a result, this really only has one explanation, which is that the building in question was prerigged with explosives.

    And that is why there are over 2000 professional architects and engineers who have signed the Architechts and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition calling for a new investigation.

    Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.

    I am aware of that particular fallacy, fuckface.

    Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically?

    Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails. And etc. etc. etc.

    Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this.

    Yes, there is a vast circle jerk of conspiracy theorists.

    In particular, the alleged phone calls from the planes that detail the official narrative, these are very problematic, not technically possible even.

    Not technically possible? So the whole Airfone ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfone ) business was faked for years in anticipation of the deception? Our government overlords have a great deal of foresight. And what evidence is there that the calls were faked? The Fake Calls theory is one of the dumbest of those associated with truthers, so it doesn't surprise me to find that you are an adherent.

    The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building was not hit by a plane even.

    Aside from various non-experts claiming that the collapse "looked like a controlled demolition" there is no evidence for this theory. No explosives found. No wires found. Nothing. But you are already at the "no reasonable doubt" stage? What a deep thinker you are!

    A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going to cause the latter to disintegrate.

    Evidence for this statement? Your feelings? Not very scientific, fuckface.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.
    I am aware of that particular fallacy, fuckface.
    So you say, but there is actually no sign at all that you are aware of that fallacy.

    In general, I've debated with shit eaters enough to know that, as a general rule, they do not understand the "beg the question" fallacy. Because they always, always, end up telling you that the government story is proof of the government story. They always do. It never fails.


    Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails. And etc. etc. etc.
    Well, you see, you don't even understand the basic parameters of the debate. You have to come up with "proof" that is not equally consistent with the person being a patsy. You know, it's like if you say that Lee Harvey Oswald was in the schoolbook depository building at the time of the assassination. Well, that's just as consistent with him being a patsy as being the killer! He has to be in approximately the right place at the right time so that you can frame him for the crime! And the same applies here.

    But you don't understand that apparently!

    So, that there is a record of Atta, or somebody representing that he's Atta, purchasing the tickets, this is just as consistent with Atta being a patsy as actually being a perpetrator. You're presenting this as proof but it is not proof of anything. Or it's stuff like there's a video of some guy who looks like Bin Laden saying he made this happen. I could put up a video making the same claim. These are just airy fairy things that are not real proof of anything. And you apparently think that it's normal that you can just launch some war and kill so many thousands of innocents based on some story with this level of proof. It's just ridiculous.

    Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this.
    Yes, there is a vast circle jerk of conspiracy theorists.
    Hmm, well, have you read any of of the authors in question? David Ray Griffin, for example? Or Webster Tarpley? Have you looked at any of the material on the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth website.

    I kind of doubt it. Officialdom just tells you what to think of this stuff and you've almost certainly never checked for yourself.

    Well, I know this. You're not the first shit eater I've debated with.

    The Fake Calls theory is one of the dumbest of those associated with truthers, so it doesn't surprise me to find that you are an adherent.
    I simply asked you what the proof of the story was. Okay, so somebody says they got a phone call. And that's proof. For you. Or they say that there were meetings in Afghanistan in which the attacks were discussed. What is the proof of that? It's just the story they tell and the story is proof of the story. You actually clearly do not understand the "beg the question" fallacy.

    Now, even if the phone calls were technically possible, which I do doubt, it hardly is proof. And certainly it is not proof of the central thesis of the government, that all of this was orchestrated by people in faroff Afghanistan. That was the basis for the subsequent war that was launched.

    Aside from various non-experts claiming that the collapse "looked like a controlled demolition" there is no evidence for this theory. No explosives found.
    Well, now it's becoming clear that you just don't know anything about this topic. Go to http://ae911truth.org/ and you'll see that the people saying this have very high levels of expertise.

    As for there being no evidence for the "theory" that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, the case is in fact overwhelming. This is simply because there is no building collapse that looks exactly like a controlled demolition that is not, in fact, a controlled demolition. Something that symmetrical obviously has to be engineered.

    As for no proof of explosives being found, this is because they specifically did not look for any.

    A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going to cause the latter to disintegrate.
    Evidence for this statement? Your feelings? Not very scientific, fuckface.
    Well, go to http://ae911truth.org/ and get educated. Anybody with, let's say, a decent high school education, who spends as much as a half day on the internet contrasting different sources, will see that the ae911truth people are simply telling the truth. And that means that the government story of what happened is simply impossible.

    This is most absolutely clear with the WTC7, since that building was not even hit by a plane. They are trying to claim that a building can implode in a perfectly symmetrical way from uncontrolled fires. The building has 40-odd steel support columns that would all have to give way within the same split second. That has to be engineered. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  246. Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 2:22 am GMT • 300 Words @BobFromTheHills We accept the principle of cross examination when the government charges someone with a crime and the case goes to court. What about if the case never makes it court? A crime occurs, but the life of the accused is snatched away before a trial can commence. In those situations, if the crime is serious enough, the government usually undertakes an investigation and issues a report which contains the same evidence that would have been used in court.

    We saw that with president Kennedys assassination, and we saw that with 911 attacks. In both cases, the accused were dead before a trial ever started. No accused, no trial. No trial, no cross examination. Just a report.

    And we're supposed to trust the report. Believe the report. The report knows all.

    But why?

    Just because there's no trial doesn't mean there can't be a cross examination of the states evidence. The only difference is that the evidence has been released in a report instead of a court trial. Why is this evidence not a fit target for cross examination, especially by people possessing relevant competencies? Why is that delegated to crazy, conspiracy thinking?

    Without cross examination, the government has not legitimately proven it's case. Without that challenge, we only have half the story. Criminal trials, the Constitution, and justice itself becomes a farce. If the accused were to conveniently die before the trial, that also conveniently negates the need to share the evidence with anyone. The government can then frame the case and generate the proper presentation, to fix the light in order to cast the shadows and manufacture the perceptions it wants.

    Conspiracy Theorists are simply people who have the temerity to point this out and follow through with a cross examination.

    If the government itself committed a crime (or a cabal within it), how would you know?

    We accept the principle of cross examination when the government charges someone with a crime and the case goes to court.

    Yeah, this is a very important point you make actually. For example, as far as I can tell, none of the testimony provided that established the official government story on 9/11 was ever subjected to any sort of adversarial cross-examination. Somebody says they got a phone call from a plane and therefore it's true.

    Or for example, somebody in this thread says that there are all these "experts" who say that whatever Bin Laden video is authentic. But, as far as I can tell, these are just CIA connected "experts" saying: "Yep, the video is real." And they're not saying it under oath, under penalty of perjury or anything. And again, no cross-examination .

    So, some guy who looks vaguely like Bin Laden is in a video chortling with glee, saying he made this happen.

    Or somebody says that there was a meeting in Afghanistan in which the attacks were discussed. How do we know this? Oh, that's in the report It always boils down to the notion that the government story is true because it's the government story.

    I'm not a lawyer but I think the technical term in jurisprudence for all this level of "evidence" is that it's just "hearsay". Statements that aren't under oath and not subjected to any cross-examination just hearsay

    And on the basis of this, we launched a war on the other side of the world and caused the deaths of so many people. Just some cock-and-bull story for which there is no evidence whatsoever. One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry.

    If the accused were to conveniently die before the trial, that also conveniently negates the need to share the evidence with anyone

    Well, yeah actually, in these Deep State operations, the patsies are pretty much invariably killed. And then, of course, the government can claim whatever it wants basically. That's how it works Of course

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  247. Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 2:36 am GMT • 100 Words @CanSpeccy Oh come'n. The Wiz isn't as bad as Dershowitz.

    Thing is though, there's probably not much difference between a lawyer and a professional troll.

    Both are annoying and mostly a waste of time.

    Oh come'n. The Wiz isn't as bad as Dershowitz.

    Well, probably not, but that would mostly be because he lacks the talent.

    I mean one thing that is clear about this Wizard is that this guy is really really stupid. I mean, you ask him for proof of the government story and he tells you that the government story is proof of the government story.

    Of course, Alan Dershowitz would make the same argument basically, but it would be masked in a more clever way. The Wizard just openly tells you that the proof of the government story is that it's the government story. Sheesh, what a moron

    Thing is though, there's probably not much difference between a lawyer and a professional troll.

    Well, he apparently really is a lawyer down in Australia. That is what he has said, and I believe it is true.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    I mean one thing that is clear about this Wizard is that this guy is really really stupid. I mean, you ask him for proof of the government story and he tells you that the government story is proof of the government story.
    But that's the thing. That's how truth is defined in this politically correct age. So it's by definition, the government story is proof of the government story.

    George Orwell unfortunately mis-dated his book 1984 , he was about 20 years too soon. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  248. Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 4:01 am GMT • 900 Words @Boris
    Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.
    I am aware of that particular fallacy, fuckface.
    Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically?
    Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails. And etc. etc. etc.

    Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this.
    Yes, there is a vast circle jerk of conspiracy theorists.

    In particular, the alleged phone calls from the planes that detail the official narrative, these are very problematic, not technically possible even.
    Not technically possible? So the whole Airfone ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfone ) business was faked for years in anticipation of the deception? Our government overlords have a great deal of foresight. And what evidence is there that the calls were faked? The Fake Calls theory is one of the dumbest of those associated with truthers, so it doesn't surprise me to find that you are an adherent.

    The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building was not hit by a plane even.
    Aside from various non-experts claiming that the collapse "looked like a controlled demolition" there is no evidence for this theory. No explosives found. No wires found. Nothing. But you are already at the "no reasonable doubt" stage? What a deep thinker you are!
    A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going to cause the latter to disintegrate.
    Evidence for this statement? Your feelings? Not very scientific, fuckface.

    Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.

    I am aware of that particular fallacy, fuckface.

    So you say, but there is actually no sign at all that you are aware of that fallacy.

    In general, I've debated with shit eaters enough to know that, as a general rule, they do not understand the "beg the question" fallacy. Because they always, always, end up telling you that the government story is proof of the government story. They always do. It never fails.

    Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails. And etc. etc. etc.

    Well, you see, you don't even understand the basic parameters of the debate. You have to come up with "proof" that is not equally consistent with the person being a patsy. You know, it's like if you say that Lee Harvey Oswald was in the schoolbook depository building at the time of the assassination. Well, that's just as consistent with him being a patsy as being the killer! He has to be in approximately the right place at the right time so that you can frame him for the crime! And the same applies here.

    But you don't understand that apparently!

    So, that there is a record of Atta, or somebody representing that he's Atta, purchasing the tickets, this is just as consistent with Atta being a patsy as actually being a perpetrator. You're presenting this as proof but it is not proof of anything. Or it's stuff like there's a video of some guy who looks like Bin Laden saying he made this happen. I could put up a video making the same claim. These are just airy fairy things that are not real proof of anything. And you apparently think that it's normal that you can just launch some war and kill so many thousands of innocents based on some story with this level of proof. It's just ridiculous.

    Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this.

    Yes, there is a vast circle jerk of conspiracy theorists.

    Hmm, well, have you read any of of the authors in question? David Ray Griffin, for example? Or Webster Tarpley? Have you looked at any of the material on the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth website.

    I kind of doubt it. Officialdom just tells you what to think of this stuff and you've almost certainly never checked for yourself.

    Well, I know this. You're not the first shit eater I've debated with.

    The Fake Calls theory is one of the dumbest of those associated with truthers, so it doesn't surprise me to find that you are an adherent.

    I simply asked you what the proof of the story was. Okay, so somebody says they got a phone call. And that's proof. For you. Or they say that there were meetings in Afghanistan in which the attacks were discussed. What is the proof of that? It's just the story they tell and the story is proof of the story. You actually clearly do not understand the "beg the question" fallacy.

    Now, even if the phone calls were technically possible, which I do doubt, it hardly is proof. And certainly it is not proof of the central thesis of the government, that all of this was orchestrated by people in faroff Afghanistan. That was the basis for the subsequent war that was launched.

    Aside from various non-experts claiming that the collapse "looked like a controlled demolition" there is no evidence for this theory. No explosives found.

    Well, now it's becoming clear that you just don't know anything about this topic. Go to http://ae911truth.org/ and you'll see that the people saying this have very high levels of expertise.

    As for there being no evidence for the "theory" that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, the case is in fact overwhelming. This is simply because there is no building collapse that looks exactly like a controlled demolition that is not, in fact, a controlled demolition. Something that symmetrical obviously has to be engineered.

    As for no proof of explosives being found, this is because they specifically did not look for any.

    A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going to cause the latter to disintegrate.

    Evidence for this statement? Your feelings? Not very scientific, fuckface.

    Well, go to http://ae911truth.org/ and get educated. Anybody with, let's say, a decent high school education, who spends as much as a half day on the internet contrasting different sources, will see that the ae911truth people are simply telling the truth. And that means that the government story of what happened is simply impossible.

    This is most absolutely clear with the WTC7, since that building was not even hit by a plane. They are trying to claim that a building can implode in a perfectly symmetrical way from uncontrolled fires. The building has 40-odd steel support columns that would all have to give way within the same split second. That has to be engineered.

    • Replies: @Boris
    You have to come up with "proof" that is not equally consistent with the person being a patsy.
    This is not how evidence works. YOU have to come up with proof that the hijackers were patsies. I mean, your whole line is breathtakingly stupid. Now you prove that Muhammad Atta was not a shape-shifting alien. Well, he MUST be a shape-shifting alien because you have NO evidence that he isn't one!
    So, that there is a record of Atta, or somebody representing that he's Atta, purchasing the tickets
    And now you are basically admitting my shape-shifting alien theory is true!
    it's normal that you can just launch some war and kill so many thousands of innocents based on some story with this level of proof.
    The war was incredibly stupid. But people do stupid things based on real-life events ALL THE TIME. 9/11 doesn't have to be fake for the war to be a horrendous idea.
    I simply asked you what the proof of the story was. Okay, so somebody says they got a phone call. And that's proof. For you.
    Here there is lots of evidence. Yes, we have multiple people who say they received phone calls from loved ones. We have multiple recordings of these phone calls. We have the phone records of these phone calls. And we have zero evidence that any of those things are fraudulent or incorrect.
    Now, even if the phone calls were technically possible, which I do doubt, it hardly is proof.
    Your "doubt" just shows your ignorance. Air phones actually existed. I know my only proof is the experience of tens of thousands of people who made calls from airplanes and the decade long existence of two competing companies who manufactured, installed and maintained those devices. But sure, maybe the shape-shifters did all that.
    Anybody with, let's say, a decent high school education, who spends as much as a half day on the internet contrasting different sources, will see that the ae911truth people are simply telling the truth.
    Oh, yeah, why spend years getting a degree in structural engineering when you can spend an afternoon and have it all figured out? Look, you still think the phone calls were fake and impossible, and you expect me to believe that you understand the nuances of a complex, dynamic process like a building collapse? The fact is that you really, really WANT a conspiracy to exist, so you will believe literally anything that confirms that conclusion. It makes you feel special and smart--for once.

    I know conspiracy sites exist, but for someone who shrilly demands "proof" at every turn, your posts are extremely light on evidence. , @Rurik Hey JR,

    I see you're having your fun with the shit eaters.

    are their any who are sincerely duped?

    or are they all cynical liars (like the 'wizard') desperately trying to defend the bullshit official narrative in order to protect the real criminals and continue using that singular crime as a pretext for destroying all of Israel's neighbors?

    I recently posted a story of an 87 year old German lady who Germany has sent to prison for questioning some of the holy and sacred tenets of the Holocaust.

    when I read what you wrote here, it reminds me of her queries to the authorities for some proof of what they claim vis-ΰ-vis the Holocaust.

    Because they always, always, end up telling you that the government story is proof of the government story. They always do. It never fails.

    "You know about it [Auschwitz] only through the grapevine-like me." This spurred Bjoern Joensson, the presiding judge, to retort, "It is pointless holding a debate with someone who can't accept any facts," adding: "Neither do I have to prove to you that the world is round."

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/11/14/nazi-grandma/75773774/

    her inquisitors are demanding that their official narrative, because it's the official narrative , is prima facia proof that it's all true, because those in power say it is, sans actual evidence. To doubt them and their narrative is literally the same as questioning if the world is round (except that they won't put you in prison for that). No proof or evidence is necessary. Its like a modern day Galileo where the authorities are simply able to tell everyone what is true, and we're all supposed to fall in line. Or else. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  249. NosytheDuke says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 5:38 am GMT @CanSpeccy Oh come'n. The Wiz isn't as bad as Dershowitz.

    Thing is though, there's probably not much difference between a lawyer and a professional troll.

    Both are annoying and mostly a waste of time.

    The Wiz is a fraud and a troll. All puffery and no pastry. Not worth your time.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  250. Hippopotamusdrome says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 7:22 am GMT @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.

    There is a conspiracy theory that it was really Poles.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  251. Hippopotamusdrome says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 8:01 am GMT • 100 Words @Darin Yes, why?

    If you want to start a war, would you want to start with great defeat and loss of your fleet?

    In the thirties, there were three cases of false flag attacks created to justify a war.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_Incident
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila

    In none of these cases the attacke