In the past few days, I've received maybe ten messages -- from friendly voices, mind you -- referring to this site as a "conspiracy" blog. I cringed every time I saw the word.
Not long ago (like, throughout most of the Clinton administration), I told all inquirers that I wished every conspiracy theorist in the world had but one neck so I could slash it with a rusty steak knife. Those guys really, really irritated me. They spewed endless tripe about Roswell and Mena and Waco and the Freemasons and the Illuminati and Evil Hillary and, of course, the Great Gun Round-up -- which, they always insisted, was scheduled to take place "some time next year."
(You know when I first heard that "some time next year" line? I was eight. The folks who peddle this crap really ought to read their Aesop. The story about the wolf.)
These guys remained impervious to any facts which contradicted their paranoid mind-sets. They were infuriating.
On the other hand, I have long believed that a conspiracy killed JFK. And that belief hardens whenever a poser like Posner fills the media with provable lies.
And I've long been intrigued by the antics of the many intelligence agencies which infect this planet. Let's face it -- conspiracy is what they do. You can't talk about them without talking about covert schemes, because many of those people are paid to scheme covertly.
I don't know if the Tale of the Bulge, with brought this column some attention, counts as a conspiracy theory. Use of the word "conspiracy" usually implies criminality. If the bulge really was a communication device, Bush and his elves were not trying to circumvent the law; rather they hoped to make W seem less stupid than he really is.
(Many moons ago, Shrub told the press that he was reading a biography of Dean Acheson. During a debate with John McCain, W was asked a question about Acheson, only to reveal that he had no idea whatsoever who the man was; McCain, by contrast, could speak eloquently about Acheson. The bulge, I feel, had its origin in that embarrassing incident.)
The vote fraud which occurred in 2004 was a criminal conspiracy. No doubt of that in my mind.
Was 9/11 a conspiracy? Obviously. But what sort of conspiracy? Was the administration (or some faction thereof) complicit, as a growing number of people now allege?
I once intended to write a book on the various controversies to grow out of the World Trade Center attacks. My intention was to write a debunking work, since so many of the notions proliferating on the net a few years ago -- remotely-piloted jets, missiles striking the Pentagon, Jews warned not to show up for work at the WTC -- struck me as silly. I even wrote a few chapters, which may appear on the web somewhere one of these days.
But over the past few years, some non-silly facts and theories have come forward which threaten to put into rewrite the Orthodox Standard View of 9/11.
For example: We've learned a lot about the financial ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family. We have good reason to arch a skeptical eyebrow whenever representatives of the latter family insist that they have nothing whatsoever to do with Osama.
And no-one, to my knowledge, has knocked down Daniel Hopsicker's investigations in Florida. Those "flight schools" Mohammed Atta and friends attended were obviously as spooky as Caspar.
One could go on, citing G.O.P. ties to the Al Taqwa bank (which funded Al Qaida), the unnerving "Vigilant Guardian" coincidence, and much more.
So why didn't I finish that book? Because back in 2003, I ran face-first into the folks involved in the 9/11 "conspiracy" community. And to put the matter concisely, they pissed me off. I felt the same I felt when I confronted those plot-spotting wingnuts during the Clinton years.
To this day, whenever my monitor fills with prattle about robot airplanes or "controlled demolitions" of the WTC (Why? Why on earth would anyone do such a thing?), I find myself reaching for my trusty rusty steak knife while muttering: "One neck...if only these goons had but one neck..."
We now find ourselves confronting an administration -- and a larger neocon subculture -- which makes conspiracy its modus operandi. Look and see: Hackable vote machines, media manipulation, Rove-gate, fake documents, massive lies told to initiate war.
Yet if you discuss these things, people accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist.
Meanwhile, the rightists feel free to theorize all they want. Last I heard, Rush Limbaugh was still peddling stories about how Joseph Wilson was an operative of the Democratic National Committee. The egregious ACVR -- a fake grass-roots "non-partisan" group put together by known Republican operatives -- issued a fact-twisting report designed to convince reporters that Democrats perpetrate vote fraud.
Conservatives are allowed to make such accusations. When we do it, we are called "conspiracy theorists." Even when we put better evidence on the table.
The worst aspect of the plot-spotter mind-set is the tendency to denounce other theorists as "spooks." Xymphora wrote a column touching on this (scroll down to "CIA Disinformation Agents"), which derived, in turn, from this WagNews entry.
WagNews purportedly reveals -- or at least alleges -- that a number of well-known sites devoted to the afore-mentioned subjects are actually run by CIA disinformation agents. The spook list includes the Brad Blog, to which yours truly may soon contribute in a small way. (For shame, Mr. Friedman! How could you take that filthy CIA lucre?)
Also fingered: Daniel Hopsicker's "Mad Cow" site, Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now," RAW Story, Bellacio, al Jazeera, Anti-War, Common Dreams, CounterPunch, Deep Black Lies, Xymphora, and -- well, every site on the internet that isn't WagNews.
Except Cannonfire. I'm not listed. Yet. Guess I'm not important enough to spook-bait.
Of course, spook-baiting is an old game in certain circles. The virus has plagued the JFK research community since the '60s.
Fingering the "false friend" -- beating the grasses for the snakes allegedly hiding therein -- fosters a pleasing (to some) aura of intrigue. Such allegations also function as a social control mechanism. In old Salem, people would cry "Goody Foster is a Witch!" to enforce conformity of thought and behavior. Now, some netizens feel no requirement to cite evidence before calling their neighbors "CIA disinformation agents." The more things change...
Xymphora responded to this list of accusations by suggesting that Mr. WagNews -- his name, it seems, is Fintan Dunne -- may be the real disinformer. I doubt it. Still, I suspect that Mr. Dunne may be a denizen of Cucamonga (as Southern Californians used to put it).
Which brings us to the key problem. How can we confront the current political crisis without finding ourselves damned as "conspiracy" spotters?
And if we embrace that nomenclature -- if we boldly announce "Yeah, I think there are genuine conspiracies afoot" -- how do we avoid being lumped alongside the anti-illuminati freakazoids and the Protocols-peddling Jew-haters and the Dunne-esque ultra-paranoids?
25 comments:
How did "They" successfully make "Liberal" a dirty word? (I am proud to be one)
How did I become a member of the "Democrat" Party? I didn't. I am however a Democrat.
"They" have made "conspiracy theory" a joke. It isn't. We're in a deadly serious battle for our country.
Time to agree on a few "sound-bytes" ourselves. Always respond instantly YES when someone pooh-poohs a "Liberal," answer with the truth "YES!!! someone who's concerned about human beings, not big business." Etc.
Democrat Party? YES I AM A MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. CALL IT BY IY'S CORRECT NAME"
We get frustrated when questioned instead of saying "YES!"
Our behavior has been modified by "them." How stupid of us!
I have a sign on the back window of my car that says "www.uscountvotes.org. And in red: "See for yourself."
If someone starts on conspiracy theory I say "YES!" See for yourself!
What's our problem?
If you're "accused" of the truth, you don't explain, you say YES!
YES OF COURSE.
Judy Down Maine
Sounds to me like there's a conspiracy to debunk conspiracy theorists.
The way a lot of people use "conspiracy
theorist" it's just a multi-syllabic
synonym for "doo-doo-head."
And when people protest that "massive
conspiracies" are impossible because
someone would talk, consider that the
illegal drug trade is a massive conspiracy
successfully conducted for years by
junkies and crack-heads and though they
talk plenty, nobody cares.
As to "Why would anyone demolish the WTC?"
the answer to me is quite simple. Because
it makes a better movie than letting it
stand as a burned-out shell. Because it
makes everyone who works in a highrise
office building feel vulnerable. Because
a sunken Battleship Maine is worth more
than a Battleship Maine with some fire
damage. Because Pearl Harbor in flames is
worth more than a sneak attack repulsed.
Which is not to say I believe the WTC was
demolished, but the fact that the steel
was recycled post-haste over protest and
the fact that NIST has not one core steel
sample that shows heating over 250 degrees
Centigrade looks very very strange. Not
to mention Marvin Bush's ties as director
to Stratesec, the company that did WTC
security.
I don't think Caspar is all that spooky. In fact, I think he is friendly and cute.
looks like we're going to war with Iran sooner than later. check out this Associated Press article:
"Iran Defies West, Resumes Nuclear Work"
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050809/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear
Iran stepped up its confrontation with the West over its nuclear program, restarting work at a uranium conversion facility Monday in a move the United States and Europe have warned will prompt them to seek U.N. sanctions.
'Iran stepped up its confrontation' ? them sounds like 'fightin words' to me coming out of the mouth of our not so very friendly Bushski neocon.
My understanding is that Iran is simply trying to expanding its nuclear energy production program.
I smell another war in the air. Military leaves cancelled in August...Bush's poll ratings at an all time low same as 4 years ago just before 9/11...economy sputtering again...military recruiters unable to make their numbers for new recruits.
Hope I'm wrong and I hope and pray that August comes and goes without any disasters or new wars. Please! visualize a boring August filled with stupid headlines about Britney Spears' quickie marriage/divorce/remarriage/divorce or Fisherman catches a whale of a fish somewhere or Brad Pitt dumps Joelina in order to save Katie Holmes from bi-sexual Tom Cruise. ha ha
The neocon machine has learned there lessons well. Win at all cost and once in power screw everybody else..
I remember my Republican friends telling me that having Bush in office will be great for business and since they are oil will keep gas prices down.
Well business is good if you lined the Republicans pockets and gas is approaching $3.00 a gallon here in California.
I'm sure the cover stories for the next attack have already been written and that Iran will be the guilty party. If they go after Iran there will be a madatory draft and this nation will be in even more turmoil than before..
Q - Why on earth would anyone cause a controlled demolition of the WTC towers?
A - I agree with anon. It was for the symbolic value. (And the buildings had been widely portrayed as a target for several years. It wasn't something discovered after 911 or even shortly beforehand). But the other part of the point is that it was impossible to bring them down using aircraft alone.
A friend of my wife is a retired civil engineer who was in charge of some enormous projects. All he says is that such buildings are built to withstand impact from aircraft. Damage is caused of course, but they don't collapse. And aircraft are known to, er, carry fuel and vary in size and mass. He doesn't understand why they collapsed. Detail junkies start here, and of course they have! :-)
Equally 'of course' - surprise! - the pitch has been queered to some extent. What does one expect, in conditions where for generations the idea of 'working class power' was ludicrously associated with supporting the 'red fascist' regime in Moscow; and 'freedom' still is associated with the idea of being free to spend whatever money you've got in your pocket.
I tend not to expend great effort on critiquing wingnutism. A lot of it is designed as a mire. And if that's not true about the specifics of this or that, it's true about a large part of the culture. Often too, the mode of delivery, or tone, is part of the message. Which makes it part of the system's politics (or culture) really. Rather than just dudes trying to understand stuff and help contribute to an environment where people think for themselves, because that's a necessary part of helping to improve things. Which is where I'm at and I think you are too.
There is a long long history of the use of psychological warfare, propaganda, and pseudo-opposition. The culture is deeply deeply schizoid. Just look at the 'education' system for example. Pseudo-opposition and the 'freedom' to choose between capitalist alternatives - I think concepts of these are major and necessary tools in the critic's arsenal/workbox. Just as the 'official' 'community' is fake, ditto the 'accepted' 'individual'.
(Some of the material by the Situationists is very useful here, although of course their image is now part of the system). One can talk about 'abstract expressionism', which was CIA-funded, as very probably was also true of 'post-modernism', especially where its message is that 'every explanation of something is equally valid', i.e. 'there is no truth'. Or 'Encounter', or 1950s Hollywood 'anomic youth' films, or how rock music commercialised 'youth rebellion' and stopped the movement of the mid-late 1960s from going forward (and by no means only via drugs) but...generalisation is good.
(It's always a sign that someone has come up against an inability to think further, and is 'compensating' for it, when they tell you that you're 'just generalising'. As opposed to, for example, 'that's a false extrapolation', which may or may not be a fair criticism).
Generalisation is necessary if we are to help bring about profound changes, and keep our minds alive, and hopefully be able to respond to the next event better than we did to the last one. So, no apologies for saying that when I heard about 911, the US government - or at least a very strong faction with big-time clout over it - was top of my suspect list.
Keep up the good work, J!
b
PS The Republicans committed widespread vote fraud in 2004 but why isn't the Democrat leadership complaining? What do you think of the fact that they work closely with the Republican leadership on things like the 'National Endowment for Democracy' which has been involved in political public-relations campaigns in several countries, including e.g. the Ukraine?
Sorry, I meant to sign as 'banana' rather than 'anonymous'.
I am the same 'nutcase' who mentioned the spraying of New York with malathion in 1999 and 2000 in a comment on the 'gassing of New York' entry :-)
b
"""The theory that 9-11 was an inside job, for example, has been amply derailed by subsequent events. The conspiracy theorists confidently predicted follow-up attacks after 9-11 (i.e., more staged domestic terror attacks, to drive in the fear), but nothing of the sort occurred. The theory made a predicvtion, & it was dead wrong."""
Sorry, but I can't agree. And I think it is a blind spot to say that 9-11 was not and could not have been an inside job.
First, the "conspiracy theory" did not "predict" anything. Individuals may have predicted further attacks. But the "inside job" theory is not dependent on that.
Second, Joseph, I have to differ with you, and many competent engineers do too, about your rejection of the controlled demolition theory. There is simply too much good evidence, and you don't have to be a wingnut to see that.
Why not accept that there is a range of options out there, parts of which have some chance of being true and/or false? I personally am not a wingnut and I see several aspects of the Inside Job theory -- not all -- as eminently probable.
For example, I don't think you can easily separate the Bush-bin Laden connection from the possibility of a BushCo-sponsored hit on New York and Washington carried out via bin Laden -- whatever the specifics.
That's what so many people fail to see: it can be both. It can be Bush AND Osama. And may very well have been. And I'm a sober guy that doesn't go out on limbs and believe me, wingnuttism is not my idea of fun.
Less outright rejection, please, and more intelligent examination of the real alternatives -- not what wingnuts on either side say about them, but the facts themselves. In so many cases, where 9-11 is concerned, I feel I'm hearing people talking who are into wishful thinking, random hatreds, or just plain haven't looked hard enough at the nitty gritty.
The people I pay attention to are the hardheaded analysts. Mere semi-informed opinion isn't worth much by comparison. Present company excepted, of course.
The internet mechanism and public scrutiny of what used to be a largely private domain -- i.e., the running of the U.S. government -- have revealed so much official malfeasance that the enormity of the criminality (and the conspiracy) actually protects these institutions.
The truth is known to be so bad that it is, literally, unspeakable -- as "bad" and "extreme" as "conspiracy theories" typically are, but with the added misfortune of also being true. If the WP, the NYT or the 6 o'clock news actually reported on the real world, we would (or so these corporate entities are persuaded) see the end of the republic (besides, the stock market and their condos would tank, which is what really worries them).
We're in the horrifying (or hilarious) position of discovering that only a fake news show (Jon Stewart, etc.) can even begin to hint at the truth at the heart of the nation. And Mr. Stewart is hardly a firebrand, or all that well informed.
So TV news pretends nothing is amiss and we go merrily along.... Fortunately the dissonance between the official view of the world, and the world as seen by large numbers of people, grows stronger.
They conspire. I pay attention.
"Which brings us to the key problem. How can we confront the current political crisis without finding ourselves damned as "conspiracy" spotters?" Your question is a good one.
There are two quick responses:
1) Name any major political outrage that did not involve a conspiracy -- a group of people working together to perpetrate the outrage?
--Wasn't the Gulf of Tonkin resolution a conspiracy to defraud America?
--Wasn't the WMD a conspiracy to defraud AMerica? Screw them. Nobody acts alone in politics. Everybody knows that.
2) Embed arguments about obvious political outrages and crimes with this little singer:
(numerous facts indicating a conspiracy)..."well, I'm not a "coincidence" theorist and this clearly points to a concerted effort to..."
"Coincidence theorist" -- mock them. They're fools.
Write your book on 911, I want to read it.
autorank of DU
When it comes to "buildings collapsing" I always think of Building 7.
Here is WTC #7 collapsing.
See for yourself
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
And please check out
www.uscountvotes.com
See for yourself.
Judy Down Maine
I consider myself to be a "conspiracy realist"
coverthistory.blogspot.com
Michael Moore said something to the effect that he wasn't much of one for conspiracy theories--except when they're true.
A refusal to consider all the possibilitiesis hardly a rational approach.
It's entirely possible that the towers were exploded by al Qaeda agents who rented offices in the buildings and brought the explosives up the freight elevator and installed them in the elevator shafts--and this is being covered up because it embarasses Marvin Bush's security company.
NOVA says that "most structural engineers were surprised when the World Trade Center towers collapsed."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/dyk.html
I don't see how lack of followup attacks disproves an inside job. Presumably followups were considered unnecessary by the perpetrators (whoever they were).
Without conspiracies there'd be no Shakespeare.
I too would like to read Joseph's book on 9/11.
"Coincidence theorist" -- mock them. They're fools
Thanks for this - I'll use it! Another term I use for these fools is 'whoopsadaisyist'. As in, something happens, and 'whoopsadaisy!', 'oh dear', 'didn't see that accident coming, but let's not think about it'. I am in the UK and I have no idea whether the term means anything in US English.
There is a problem of critics being identified with kooks who go on about lizards and stuff... I think we should just keep on in our sober way and keep sharpening our concepts... Times are bad. In the west there is widespread ignorance of what this society is all about, to such a degree that has never existed before in human history (or rather, prehistory). There is a dictatorship, and people think they're 'free'! No slave thought they were free in ancient Egypt or Rome. Nor did any serfs in feudal Europe.
How on earth did this come about? The reason for it is the deliberate, centralised, and continually reinforced encouragement of ignorance and mental illness... The rulers really do treat the vast majority of people like cattle. They have total contempt.
When you look at the means of generating and reinforcing this, Marx's idea about the relationship between the means of production and the relations of production begins to make sense. I don't offer this in terms of a 'scientific' 'determinism' which says that the development of technology essentially 'points towards' a better society. It obviously doesn't. I offer it in terms of the 19th century idea of the 'social question'. (That term used to be used with a lot of radical intent, and is the origin of the term 'socialism'). As in, ain't it cute that the society that can put a man on the moon and allow people to communicate with others on the other side of the world within seconds, has literally millions of people starving, and the vast majority of people in the world deprived of any control over the means of reproducing themselves and society?
But at least we can talk to each other various places and even publish stuff. Sadly there is no easy route towards being able to 'present our ideas' in such a way that everyone will say right away 'hey, you may have a point there'.
With apologies to Anton Pannekoek, we are not weak because we are up against what 'concidentalist' idiots say about 'conspiracy theory' -or for that matter, what idiots say who happen to be 'conspiracy theorists'. On the contrary, we are up against what idiots say about 'conspiracy theory' because we are weak.
b
To this day, whenever my monitor fills with prattle about robot airplanes or "controlled demolitions" of the WTC (Why? Why on earth would anyone do such a thing?)
To say that the collapses of three(!) towers on 911 were not the result of some sort of explosives (after, of course, watching all the video evidence), is like watching the Zapruder film of the president's brains flying out the back of his head and still believing he was shot from behind.
To the person who suggests that al qaeda members who rented offices at the WTC could have brought explosives up the freight elevators and installed them, why then did they bother with the hijacking of commercial airliners with the intent to fly them into the buildings?
I think the sooner Americans come to grips with the notion that their own government is capable of the most unspeakable and greatest evil, the sooner you will become more intolerant of and enraged by their actions and finally do something about it. Keeping your heads in the sand and refusing to see the cancer that is your government will only allow it to spread.
Common Americans! Your nation's history shows how you have overcome huge obstacles in the past. Fight the good fight. The world is cheering you on!
sofla said:
The problem is, the typical conspiracy debunker is himself pushing a conspiracy thesis which is typically less credible than the ones he's debunking.
The STANDARD tale of the 9/11 events put up against the various conspiracy theories out there is itself a conspiracy story which strains credulity.
Same thing with the JFK Warren Commission conclusion and its apologists. Their 'solution' is that Oswald, in a one-man conspiracy (a limiting case, to be sure!), arranged this killing, although they lack any motive or even a claim of responsibility (far from being a proud perpetrator, Oswald protested his innocence, denied he shot 'anybody,' and claimed he was 'a patsy,' before he was interrogated for hours without counsel or written or recorded notes of the interrogation, and before he was killed while still in police custody.)
To show how far the 'coincidentalist theorists' were prepared to go, when the House Select Committee on Assassinations placed another shooter at or around the grassy knoll (by tape recorded echo information), the Washington Post STILL said, but they both could have been there INDEPENDENTLY, simply by coincidence!
If al Qaeda could have smuggled explosives into the WTC, why then did they bother with the hijacking of commercial airliners?
To make it a better movie? "Do you want fireballs with that?" To cover up the fact that an 8:45 attack rather than a 10:45 attack minimized casualties?
Because the threat of anonymous tenants demolishing buildings is far less scary than the idea that any target anywhere--even in Kansas!-- is at risk for aerial attack. If al Qaeda did 9/11 (and I'm not sayng they did or didn't) an important point is the implicit threat on those other twin towers, the Petronas towers in Malaysia, the premier capitalist Muslim nation.
I don't know what happened, and I'm not proposing explosice tenants as "the answer." It's important not to foreclose on the options prematurely. People reject the WTC explosives thesis out of hand because they think it demands gov't complicity. It doesn't. A government coverup does not necessarily improve complicity either. The coverup may be due to embarassing lapses in security. While following hypotheses and seeking out evidence can be fruitful, let's make conclusions as late in the analytical stage as possible.
I am NOT a "conspiracy theorist". I AM a discoverer and what I have discovered should concern everyone.
As they anticipated you are needlessly mired in the minutae of 911 -- just like JFK. Learn from the past or you will be doomed to repeat it.
Alex Jones (and other conspiracy psy op distractors like him) and Michael Moore are shills for the ZIONISTS.
They mix in crumbs of truth and enough fantasy relating to the how, what, where, and when in an attempt to FALSELY create CREDIBILITY for themselves.
However, they ALWAYS intentionally mislead and disinform on the WHO and WHY. Hope you enjoy being lost in the rabbit hole and masturbating your mind thinking you are onto something.
The WHOS are the only important issue relating to 911 and its that elephant in the corner stupid -- called ZIONISM.
Who owns & operates the media -- that is why these SPY stories involving ISRAEL are buried or never pursued. Anytime Michael Moore is involved you should be aware that ZION spinning is going on. These ZIONISTS thrive on controlling ALL sides of an issue. When light is put on them they wilt back into the hidey holes (like ISRAEL) where they belong. They create the fake "conspiracy theories" so their chums can later debunk them and look "gifted". All sides are the same side.
1. What do the following have in common: Clinton, Condit, Mc Greevy and 4 star general Byrnes ???
2. What do the following have in common: Lewinsky, Levy, and Cippel ???
the answer to #1 is: They were all duped into a MOSSAD honey trap.
the answer to #2 is: They are all MOSSAD agents and all happen to be self identified practicers of judaism. Only 1.9% of the US population identifies themselves as practicing judasim. This is beyond coincidence. What about all the school shooters ??? Thank goodness they removed this COMPROMISED 4 star general from his post. There are still some patriots left in the FBI, CIA, and DIA that have not been deluded / fooled by the ZION lies.
DONT LET THE ZION MEDIA SHILLS / WHORES distract from the reality that the MOSSAD has been trying to deceive our nation into fighting israels enemies for some time — including their complicity in 911. PURGE THE ZION TRAITORS including the scumbags FRANKLIN, ROSEN, and WEISSMAN.
Don’t believe the ZION lies about BUSH. They are attempting to take down another president.
FYI — another ZION shill was arrested yesterday before he could flee to the criminal haven called ISRAEL — Abramoff. Looking forward to the next shill indictment of SAYANIM NOVAK.
ZIONISTS are ANTI 1st amendment and ANTI 2nd amendment and they are also ANTI AMERICAN.
The #1 terrorist / spy organization in the USA continues to operate openly in Washington DC — its called AIPAC.
Imagine this: In the middle of our 'war on terror,' a foreign government (Israel) has spies who have infiltrated the highest levels of the Department of Defense.
Larry Franklin, Rosen, Weissman and the AXIS of ADL, AIPAC, and ISRAELI TRAITORS / ESPIONAGE — all indicted.
ZIONIST Douglas Feith (the architect of the IRAQ war and the boss of indicted spy Larry Franklin) resigned August 9th, 2005 and has fled the country. This story was also buried.
Who owns the MEDIA, the VOTE COUNTING MACHINES, the MILITARY, the POLITICIANS, the FEDERAL RESERVE ??? Research it to get ENLIGHTENED.
The sudden use of “HOMELAND” instead of “our country” or “our nation” – is word warfare. Why are we not talking about protecting our country or our nation? I’ll tell you why. We are no longer to think of the USA as a sovereign nation – we are to think of ourselves as having a “homeland” in the ZIONIST government. Ironically, "HOMELAND SECURITY" is run by a dual US-ISRAELI citizen named Michael Chertoff.
Those who think this is going to far – have no idea of the heartless, ruthless psycho-warfare propagandists we should be fighting.
Remove these dual citizens from critical posts in the USA government IMMEDIATELY -- such as Michael Chertoff. NO MORE dual loyalties. This is a war -- not pattie cakes with your playground chums.
"No one censors speech they agree with."
Cars at their best car muscle racing street video
I generally have tremendous respect for you, I just linked your blog on yet another reddit discussion. You're probably sick of reddit by now though.
I just want to mention that this is a great post that retains its value, there is a particular irony in this post. You link to Xymphora's blog, and then go on to lash out at "Jew haters". The special irony here is that one of the top stories on their blog right now is a link to a story on David Duke's webpage regarding "Jewish Supremacists". Maybe things have gone downhill for them since you linked to their blog. Regardless you might want to edit in a caveat about that site in your post, if possible. Thanks!
Daniel, I'm not sick of reddit. Reddit is fun.
You may not understand that you have -- for some reason -- commented on a post from 2005. I tend to read many of my older posts with a real sense of discovery, and this is one example. You can't expect me to recall (or even to agree with) everything I've written over the years. Hell, I'm lucky these days to remember my own middle name.
Xymphora was a rather different writer back in 2005. He either changed his colors or showed his true ones. At any rate, at some point after 2005, he crossed the line separating criticism of Israel and race-based hatred of Jews. I dislike Israel, but I don't dislike Jews. That is to say, they are no worse than other people. Of course, I happen to have a pretty cynical opinion of the human race as a whole. Being human is a low occupation.
There was a time when Xymphora and I would cite each other. No more. I want nothing to do with that guy.
I have no idea how to edit a post of this vintage. It would probably be very difficult to use the Blogger interface to scroll back seven years. At any rate, very few people read posts from 2005.
Post a Comment