Framing (Again)

Originally I read this in an adbusters years ago: "The cold war was World War III, the war on terror is World War IV".

I didn't think much of it at the time, in fact I thought it was stupid, because nobody else thinks that. In history books in my public education I was told that the cold war was an era of almost war with examples of the cuban missle crisis, but never actual war. I learned later that pax americana was hardly peaceful with WARS(call it what you want but if it looks like war and quacks like war...) in just about every Latin American country, and every region of the globe. If we weren't outright going to war we were selling arms to Indonesia for use in the East Timor genocide, because us small arms sales are 50% of world sales.

It reminded me of Einstein's quote that "we don't know what world war three will be fought with, but world war four will be fought with sticks and stones". Apparently his metaphor was wrong, but his idea was right: War is more dangerous than its ever been.

My point is that this quote had some truth to it. It was a reaction to the war on terror, but there is a much better term which both Hannah Arendt and Carl Schmitt have used "Global Civil War".
The correct phrasing should be: "The cold war was World War III, and we are in the midst of World War IV which is a Global Civil war".

Is this not truth?
The cold war was a bipolar competition for sovereignty of the globe. The "low-intensity warfare" or "proxy wars" are still wars! The united states and the USSR fought a war against each other during those years. The USSR could not continue the war because their political and economic systems had to be drastically changed starting with Perestroika and Glasnost. When the USSR broke up the United States was the victor of World War III, and global hegemon. WTF is the difference between the hegemon and the sovereign? I have stated this before that the United States is the world government. The UN does not have police, the US does in the form of a military which receives the largest percentage of GDP of any nation. The US enforces its will around the globe and empirically is willing to pre-emptively strike in order to enforce that will.

As I have also stated before the global hegemon/sovereign can only maintain that position if it doles out energy supplies and has a steady cheap supply for themselves. Lets look at some(I have to say some because the list is a mile fucking long) of our "interventions"(see: "wars") since the USSR's break up. First is Saddam former scumbag and confidant of United Statesian intelligence scumbags. He rose to power and is now leading Iraq, he invades tiny kuwait. Need more historical info, Iraq has the 2nd largest proven oil reserves and Kuwait is up there.. Recently the situation has changed apparently last year Venezuela's got way higher, but back in 91 we're talking here. Back then Iraq had proven reserves of 100 billion barrels, Kuwait had 96.5, and Saudi Arabia had 260.9. THe UAE is also on the arabian peninsula and has like 98 bil. we're talking about 800 Billion worldwide proven.
So Saddam doubles his oil supply,  Instead of about 12.5% hes up to 25% of world oil. Saudi Arabia is freakin' out they have shit for an army: an air force full of toys and muttawa thugs enforcing wahabbism. Mister Osama Bin Laden himself goes to the Sauds and hes like "let me bring my buddies from Afghanistan over here and we'll fuck saddam up for you." The Sauds were like "Ha! yeah your guerrilla army is going to confront Saddam's soldiers, we'll be executed within days, Ameicans said they want at him, they just need a place to park their troops, so we're letting them chill here while they take Saddam out, we'll have to make sure there are no women driving when they get here, we don't want them to think us savages." Then Bin Laden is all like Fuuuuuuuu!!!!!!!! and rage quit saudi arabia because they let infidels(Americans) in the land of the two holy shrines(saudi arabia[mecca and medina]). 20 years later: 9/11, but I digress. Saddam is sitting at 25% and all he has to do is go next door and take out a few cities because like 99% of Saudi Arabia is uninhabited('cept for nomads) and he'll be sittin on more than half of the world's proven oil supplies. Holy fucking shit, you have to go through Saddam to get a gas pump. So Sauds let the US in, US drives Saddam out of Kuwait, a regional hegemon has thusly been deterred and the US grip on energy becomes even better because they now have better relations with Saudi Arabia and fucking troops there. If the US ever really needs oil they just need to knock off a few asshole royals that the entire country('cept the muttawa) hate anyway and bam Americana Arabia, Or I guess they already decided they want to call it Syriana. This was an effort to maintain global sovereignty from a potential threat(saddam controlling 50%+ of world oil).
There are trends like this in foreign policy, countries ask the US for help and they send troops, sometimes the troops hang around for awhile.

The next major event comes with 9/11. Which was a perfect excuse to engage in the project The PNAC and many other neo-realist intelligentsia wanted: to finally go back to Iraq and just take the fucker over.
It was also the perfect excuse to engage in the project recommended by Brezenzki of the CFR and many other neo-liberal intelligentsia: to take over Afghanistan for its geopolitical value.
In an academia that pictured itself with the gods eye view of Science and Cartesian rationality, they often end up blind to the most obvious prejudices. Orientalist discourse constructed the middle east as a place of conflict that needed the managing our masculine western whiteness naturally gives us.Iraq and Afghanistan give the US a jumping off point for a land takeover of most of the middle east, specifically potential regional hegemons like Iran.

The United States has been and continues to further its position of power in the world. This position of power is admittedly based on the ability to project power(i.e. violence) across the globe quickly and effectively(i.e. kills lots of people). This is different than a state who passes laws and has the police enforce them with violence. I do not mean to say that this isn't sovereignty, just that this doesn't even remotely resemble what we refer to as "democracy". The US still has some set of universal values which can sometimes be discerned by reading the writings of corporate shills that political science supplies us with, but whether or not the universal rules are codified, as is the case in a democracy, what we can be sure of is that the US visits violence upon those who do not obey. This is a form of sovereignty. When no other country on earth has this ability or if they do have it, but not engage in it, this is evidence that the US is the sole world sovereign.

So I would like to frame history differently, I do not wish to propagandize but to use evidence to support my point, obviously if you refer to world war three or four people will not understand, but don't these labels stand up to scrutiny? Are we not in the midst of a global civil war?

P.S. Another framing I find interesting these days is the bracketing of "occupy wall street" and "arab spring", why is this not part of one global phenomenon that is a reaction to a declining economy and an increasing rich-poor gap(which can also be read as a declining middle class)?

9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out

A book of essays edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott
I originally got this book because I am very excited about Peter Dale Scott’s future book, which he has released a sample chapter from . Little did I expect to find the perfect 911 truth book. This book is a collection of essays from credible academics and whistleblowers. This book is an investigation with a vast breadth of information. The best part is this volume is broken in to smaller easier to consume portions, thusly it is anything but challenging. I have not finished reading all the essays, but I couldn’t help but suggest this to everyone already. I want to transcribe a few essays, but I do not want to give anyone an excuse not to get this bad ass book, so i’m going to transcribe the preface. I will not be rechecking for spelling errors and I type incredibly fast, so….deal with it.

[Begin Transcription]In the period since September 11, 2001, some researchers outside the mainstream of public discourse have increasingly been discovering and presenting evidence that contradicts the official account of what happened that day, including the official account of who was ultimately responsible for the attacks. Given the role that 9/11 has played in subsequent history-serving as the rationale both for a global “war on terror,” which has thus far targeted Afghanistan and Iraq, and for extreme reductions in the civil liberties of Americans-the discovery that the official narrative about 9/11 was a lie would be a discovery of first importance. And yet thus far the mainstream media and most members of the academy have refused to explore the evidence that has been presented for this alternative narrative.The main rationale for ignoring this evidence, insofar as a rationale is given, is that the so-called evidence need not be taken seriously because it has been presented by “conspiracy theorists.” If analyzed, however, this charge provides no basis for discounting the proffered evidence.For one thing, we are all conspiracy theorists. A conspiracy occurs whenever two or more people conspire in secret to do something illegal, such as robbing a bank, defrauding investors, or having a spouse killed. Our newspapers and television news shows are filled with stories about conspiracies. Insofar as we believe any of these stories, we are conspiracy theorists. A second problem is that the official narrative about 9/11 is itself a conspiracy theory, alleging that the attacks were orchestrated entirely by Arab-Muslim members of al-Qaeda under the inspiration of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.In light of these two considerations, an alternative theory about 9/11 cannot rationally be dismissed out of hand on the grounds that it is a conspiracy theory. Instead, the question becomes: which of the two conspiracy theories is the more probable? And the only way to answer this question is to examine the relevant evidence, asking which of the competing hypotheses can better accommodate all the relevant evidence in a consistent and otherwise plausible way.Confronted with this argument, journalists, editors, and educators may reply that the above term “conspiracy theorists” in a pejorative way, they have a more particular meaning in mind. They mean people who tend to see conspiracies, especially involving the US government, everywhere; who do not construct their theories on the basis of evidence but select and construe evidence in terms of their preconceived theories; and who, insofar as they appeal to evidence, use it to make wild inferences based on leaps of logic. Conspiracy theorists in this sense of the term can certainly exist within what has been called the 9/11 Truth movement. But there are bad and every crazy theorist in every field, from quantum and relativity physics to evolutionary theory to the history of religion. Crazy theorists in these fields do not discredit the sensible ones. The same should be true in relation to 9/11 studies-assuming, of course, that this field of study has some sensible theorists.This book, by demonstrating that it does, makes clear that alternative accounts of 9/11 cannot be dismissed on the grounds that they are offered only by people who fit the label of “conspiracy theorists” in the pejorative sense. All of the eleven contributors to this volume were well-respected members of establishment organizations before they got involved in the question of 9/11. Ten of them had earned the Ph.D. Nine of them were professors at well-regarded universities; one was employed at Underwriters Laboratories; one was a military officer in the Pentagon. The combined weight of their testimony cannot be dismissed lightly. This combined testimony points to a twofold conclusion: the official account of 9/11 is false and this false account ahs been used to support an agenda that has been worked out in advance-the further extension of the American empire, most immediately in to Afghanistan and Iraq.Some of the chapters in this volume focus primarily on reasons to doubt the official account of 9/11. Some of them focus primarily on the way 9/11 has been exploited to further the American empire. And others deal somewhat equally with both issues.The chapter by David Ray Griffin, which is based on a lecture that inspired this volume, presents an overview of the most important evidence suggestive of complicity by the US government in the attacks of 9/11. Then, pointing to evidence that the motive would have been to advance the American empire, he argues that this connection reinforces the contention, already apparent on other grounds, that the project to create an all-inclusive American empire must be considered, on the basis of moral norms that are common to all traditions, an immoral project. The next three chapters focus primarily on evidence against the official account of 9/11. Karen Kwiatkowski assesses this account from her perspective as a former military officer, a scientist, an academic, and a person who was present at the Pentagon on 9/11. Pointing out that the 9/11 Commission contained no people capable of assessing the evidence from a scientific perspective, she says that it did not answer or even address any of her questions about the official story. Especially valuable is her eyewitness testimony about the west wing of the Pentagon shortly after it was struck, in which she reports that she saw neither the debris nor the damage that would be expected from an attack by an airliner. The chapter by physicist Steven Jones zeroes in on the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 of the World Trade Center. He points to many features of these collapses that cannot be explained by the official theory, according to which the collapses were caused by fire (and, in the case of the Twin Towers, by airplane damage). He then shows that it is more probable that the buildings were destroyed in controlled demolitions, triggered by pre-set explosives. Kevin Ryan, whose whistle-blowing action while he worked for Underwriters Laboratories is mentioned by Jones, argues that the question of the true cause of the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings is of utmost importance, because it was what psychologically prepared Americans for the so-called War on Terror. Agreeing with Jones on the unscientific nature of the official report on the WTC collapses, which was put out by NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), Ryan describes some of the behind-the-scenes details in the failure by Underwriters Laboratories to protest NIST’s distortion of evidence that it had supplied. The next two chapters discuss background information that may be important to unraveling the truth about 9/11. Peter Dale Scott focuses on the role of drugs and oil in American covert operations, especially the operation in Afghanistan in the 1980s involving so-called “Arab Afghans.” Saying that the American people have been misled about the origins of al-Qaeda, he describes its origin in the use of drug-trafficking Muslims by the United States and American petroleum companies in their quest to control oil. He suggests that secrecy in foreign policy formation has led to short sighted and disastrous strategies and that Congress should not give still more money to the very agencies that helped create the al-Qaeda network in the first place. Swiss historian Daniele Ganser’s contribution is relevant to one of the main a priori reasons Americans have had for rejecting the idea that 9/11 could have been orchestrated by our own government: the assumption that American political and military leaders simply would not do such heinous thing. He presents evidence, widely discussed in Europe during the 1990s but hardly at all in the United States, that during the Cold War, the CIA and NATO supported various right-wing movements in a “strategy of tension” to prevent left-wing electoral victories. The methods included staging “false-flag” terrorist attacks that would be blamed on the left to discredit them and justify their suppression. The next three chapters discuss problems in the ability of the American public to engage in a rational discussion about the truth of 9/11. Morgan Reynolds, as the first former member of the Bush-Cheney administration to declare 9/11 a false-flag operation, discusses the response by the academy: silence by most of it and ridicule and intimidation by his former university, Texas A&M, whose president, Robert Gates, was previously director of the CIA. Reynolds suggests that this kind of intimidation exercised by Gates may reflect a widespread problem within the academy, which would help explain the failure of most of its members to discuss the big lie of 9/11 and its connection to the government’s global domination project. Richard Falk, from whom Reynolds derived the phrase “global domination project,” suggests that the Bush administration probably either allowed the 9/11 attacks, or conspired to cause them, in order to facilitate this project. Discussing the official management of suspicion in relation to 9/11 is itself suspicious, he suggests that the inability to discuss the truth about 9/11 reflects a fear that dark secrets will be exposed. But until the truth about 9.11 is publicly discussed, Falk suggests, its paralyzing effect will prevent us from facing the structural deficiencies in the present global order. John McMurtry observes that the official story about 9/11 is transparently false; that the wars declared after 9/11 were in fact its strategic reasons; and that the so-called “liberation of Iraq” is an instance of what international law has determined to be “the supreme crime.” To explain why most Americans cannot see these obvious truths, McMurtry proposes the concept of a ruling group-mind, which screens out everything that does not fit its preconceptions. One of the many novel elements in McMurtry’s analysis is his explanation of why orchestrating 9.11 would have been entirely rational for the bush administration adnt he class it serves, given their goals and their ability to control any subsequent investigation. The final two chapters discuss the likely forces behind 9.11 in terms of the goal of global domination. Ola Tunander observes that the major effect of 911 has been to allow policies that were developed by influential US thinkers during the 1990s to establish a “Pax Americana” to be put in to practice under the guise of a global war on terror. Given the way in which state terrorism has been used in prior years, we can probably best understand 9/11 as an example of the kind of false-flag terrorism described in ganser’s chapter, used this time, however, to apply the “Strategy of tension” to the world as a whole.The idea of a group with a global domination agenda is explored in the chapter by sociologist Peter Phillips and two of his students. The global domination group, understood as the current version of what President Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex,” is seen as as segment of the higher circle policy elites-the segment witht he most to gain from a US policy of global domination. Phillips suggests that investigations to determine ultimate responsibility for 9/11 and its cover-up might well begin with this group, the central members of which he seeks to identify. The various chapters contain, of course, much more than can be indicated in these thumbnail sketches. Each chapter presents as multitude of facts that have seldom appeared on mainstream radio and television or in mainstream newspapers and magazines. These facts, and the connections between them, have also thus far been largely absent in college and university classrooms, even in departments most germane to discussing the various kinds o evidence, such as departments of physics, chemistry, architecture, engineering, aeronautics, history, political science, economics, sociology, philosophy, and religion. The publication of the present volume-along with the establishment of a new organization, Scholars for 9/11 Truth (for which one of our contributors, Steven Jones, serves as co-chair)-signals the beginning of a new phase of the 9/11 Trust movement, one in which scholars will play an increasingly larger role. (see also Paul Zarembka, ed., The Hidden History of 9-11-2001 [Amsterdam: El sevier, 2006].) We hope that this book, besides convincing members of the public and the mainstream media of the seriousness and importance of the issues raised by this movement, will aos encourage specialists in the fields not represented in this volume to examine the relevant evidence that their educations have prepared them to evaluate. We have put out this volume in the conviction that 9/11 was not only the largest and least-investigated homicide in American history but perhaps also the largest hoax, with extremely fateful consequences for human civilization as a whole. If our educational community cannot address this issue, then it risks remaining merely “academic” in the worst sense of the term.[END TRANSCRIPTION]

The US federal government has no direct complicity in the 911 attacks

As the majority of people in our country believe(60% of new yorkers) the U.S. Government did not have foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. I want to explore the facts and assumptions shared by this group. For the purposes of this blog I will assume that there was no foreknowledge in any branch of government, (like the administration)I will ignore warnings from Russia and the Mossad that were delivered to the white house, and will even ignore the wargames on 9/11 which were being co-ordinated by Dick Cheney.Shit I’ll ignore the August 6th PDB entitled: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” which refers specificallly to plane attacks and was published in the 9/11 commission report. I’ll ignore the massive troop movements of British and US military prior to 9/11. Basically I am going to BE IGNORANT for the purpose of this blog.

Under this mindset there are two large mutually exclusive schools of thought.
1. 9/11 is a result of Muslim Fundamentalism.
2. 9/11 is a result of imperialist foreign policy.

I intend to investigate both schools of thought and I argue these are the only 2 schools of thought when it comes to 9/11 compartmentalization.

1. 9/11 Is A Result of Muslim Fundamentalism

We’ll start with the simple one: 9/11 happened because of radical Islamists. There are again two divergent schools of thought under this assumption:

(a.)-Islam itself is a threat to western civilization
(b.)-Wahabbism is the threat.

(1.a.) As I write my own subjectivity should be apparent, which is good because then you can take me with a grain of salt and critically assess even the points I present in a good light. The only reason I bring up my own biases is because I believe (1.a.) is the assumption of the “all around ignorant idiot”. This is the assumption which is forceed down our throat on 24 propaganda disseminators. This is also one of the arguments brought up in the intellectual class under one of the most famous living political scientists: Samuel Huntington(his pen name), who wrote the “Clash of Civilizations”(the essay is available free online, look for the link in my profile).To understand such a eurocentric attitude in the public, one must trace it to its’ intellectual birth.Huntington sums his argument up: “These conflicts between princes, nation states and ideologies were primarily conflicts within Western civilization, “Western civil wars,” as William Lind has labeled them. This was as true of the Cold War as it was of the world wars and the earlier wars of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. With the end of the Cold War, international politics moves out of its Western phase, and its center- piece becomes the interaction between the West and non-Western civilizations and among non-Western civilizations. In the politics of civilizations, the peoples and governments of non-Western civilizations no longer remain the objects of history as targets of Western colonialism but join the West as movers and shapers of history.”(from the essay not the book)I’d say its a pretty nice piece of forecasting. If one believes that 9/11 is a result of Islamic Fundamentalism and that all Islam poses a threat to the west, I think they’d agree with Huntington that 9/11 was a non-west entity thrusting itself in to the category of “movers and shapers of history”. Of course defining Islam as the enemy(or defining any enemy of your country) also makes whatever your country stands for just and right. This school of thought likes their history and news to be oversimplified to an incredible degree, they need what Chomsky called Emotionally Potent Oversimplifications in order to go through life. They do not want the opportunity to be paralyzed by choice, they see it as a blessing that someone else is making the decision. Democracy is a great responsibility and there are many who do not want the responsibility, they instead revel in the “freedom” of not having the responsibility of choice. I believe this category of (1.a.) is the largest category of 9/11 compartmentalizers.

(1.b.) This next school of thought is similar to the first in the respect that it is part of the same overarching idea of Islam as evil, but move away from the oversimplifications at that point. These are the people who have done cursory research on international relations or have a little more detailed view of Islam. They understand there are only 2 wahabbi regimes in history: the House of Saud and the Taliban, both of whom were heavily involved in the attacks of 9/11 and involved in the reaping of profit from 9/11. These individuals agree with Huntington, but fancy themselves smarter and more humane, because they recognize the specific sect of Islam that is the threat to “western civilization”. The book that I think carries some great information on “Wahabbism” is “House of Bush, House of Saud” by Craig Unger. As I look through this book and various articles I literally cannot quote anything. This is because I promised to function under the assumption that the U.S. government doesn’t share direct culpability. Everything one finds on Wahabbism is overshadowed by U.S. involvement.



Ok I’m going to take leave from the original assumptions and operative definitions I have to function under on this blog for this category to give my true opinion and some facts. The facts show that the Taliban was built brick-by-brick by the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate of Pakistan which has been and still is funded with U.S. taxpayer money(and/or CIA dirty money). The citation for this is the George Washington University-National Security Archives, in the 9/11 source files, under the “lessons from the last war” sections. If anyone has not read those, I urge you to check them out, learning the details of what the Mujahadin were and the tasks they undertook are incredibly important puzzle pieces. The declassified documents are very blatant in their discussion of how the Taliban was created and why. It was not only UNOCAL’s pipeline it was also geopolitical considerations in avoiding the creation of an independent state “Pashtoonistan” on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan(which would of course take some territory from both states). The fact of the matter is that Wahabbists’ control a lot of oil, so we’re willing to do whatever they say, most important of which at the time was “not embarrassing the Saudis”. The example of this is the World Assembly of Muslilm Youth a group funneling money to Jihadis was being investigated by the FBI. This group was run by 2 Bin Ladens (I can only remember Abdullah’s first name off the top of my head), we’d all heard of the tanzania bombings, the khobar towers, and the uss cole so the name Bin Laden and his organization Al-Qaeda is well known. The FBI investigation of the WAMY was quashed by the White House(citation:Greg Palast). So I see Saudis ordering the U.S. around, lets see how our boy Tim Osman…sorry sorry…Usama Bin Laden says about that. (now i’m back functioning under the no culpability assumption, and I found my excerpt from Unger): ”...Robert Jordan, the Baker Botts attorney who had been nominated earlier as ambassador to Saudi Arabia, finally testified in confirmation hearings before the Senate. Jordan, who had represented President Bush during the Harken insider trading fracas…Jordan was not asked about nor did he comment on the fact that many high-level Saudis refused to accept that Saudis were involved in the attacks, and instead blamed 9/11 on unnamed ‘Zionists’...Jordan’s approach to Saudi Arabia was not out of sync with the policies that had linked the United States and the Saudis for several decades, policies that were deeply flawed because they were blind to the rise of Islamist terror, but that in many ways had been spectacularly fruitful for the United States, producing a stable, secure flow of oil that had lasted for decades. No two figures played a bigger role in those policies than George H.W. Bush and James Baker…Now,however, even in the wake of one of the worst catastrophes in American history, the Bush administration continued to ignore the Saudi role in terrorism. It had approved the Saudi evacuation and it continued to act as if the House of Saud and the Saudi merchant elite could in no way be complicit with the act of terror that had just taken place.”-pg 262



2. 9/11 is a result of Imperialist Foreign Policy

Ok now we get in to the gritty area that forced me to put the word “direct” in my title. (1.a.) functions on a complete lack of western culpability and (1.b) sees a certain small level of culpability in the fact that the US made the Taliban a contender for the national controller of the “state” and the protection afforded to oil-rich wahabbists.  This is where I again have to remind myself that I am functioning under the assumption that the US has no direct culpability, which means I have to incorrectly assume that the things Osama Bin Laden says are not efforts at social control to manipulate people who have been socialized in to a middle-east muslim culture and use them as tools for his(and his allies) betterment. Instead I will assume(as I must, in order to be consistent in the assumption that the US has no direct culpability) that: Bin Laden is an islamic revolutionary who truly believes in the moral ends of his cause. So straight from the horses mouth:
From CNN interview Peter Arnett with Usama Bin Laden, March 1997Peter Arnett: “You’ve declared a jihad against the United States. Can you tell us why? And is the jihhad directed against the US government or the United States’ troops in Arabia? What about US civilians in Arabia or the people of the United States?” Usama Bin Laden: “We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal, and tyrannical. it has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous, and criminal, whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Land of the Prophet’s Night Journey. And we believe the US is directly reponsible for those who were killed in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq. The mention of the US reminds us before everything else of those innocent children who were dismembered, their heads and arms cut off in the recent explosion that took place in Qana [in Lebanon]. This US government abandoned even humanitarian feelings by these hideous crimes. It transgressed all bounds and behaved in a way not witnessed before by any power or any imperialist power in the world. They should have been sensitive to the fact that the qibla of the Muslims raises the emotion of the entire Muslim world. Due to its subordination to the Jews, the arrogance and haughtiness of the US regime has reached such an extent that it occupied the qibla of the Muslims, who are more than a billion in the world today. For this and other acts of aggression and injustice, we have declared jihad against the US, because in our religion it is our duty to make jihad so that God’s word is the one exalted to the heights and so that we drive the Americans away from all Muslim countries. As for what you asked, whether jihad is directed against US soldiers, the civilians in Saudi Arabia, or against the civilians in America, we have focused our declaration on striking at the soldiers in Saudi Arabia. This country has in our religion a significance of its own over the other Muslim countries. In our religion, it is not permissible for any non-Muslim to stay in our country. Therefore, even though American civilians are not targeted in our plan, they must leave. We do not guarantee their safety, because as a result of the US government’s targeting of Muslim civilians and executing more than 600,000 Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them. So, the US is responsible for any reaction, because it extended its war against troops to civilians. This is what we say. As for what you asked regarding the American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility, because they chose this government and voted for it despite their knowledge of its crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and in other places, and its support of its client regimes who filled their prisons with our best children and scholars. We ask that God may release them.”


Ok so that is the guy who supposedly led the group that attacked the U.S. on 9/11 and he is saying the entire “jihad” on the U.S. is a result of military imperialism. So it contradicts (1.a.) and (1.b.), because from his point of view its not civilization and not fundamentalist Islam, but a direct result of western violence perpetrated upon Muslims.
I would like to know what others think. I believe these 2 categories(and the subcategories) are the only ways in which individuals can compartmentalize the attacks on 9/11 and avoid ever even considering the assertion that the U.S. Government(particularly the Pentagon and White House) has some level of culpability in the attack of 9/11.
Now to speak from outside my original assumption I’d just like to give my opinion: If you don’t believe the US government has some level of culpability (whether direct or through proxy) in the 9/11 attacks, you are an idiot.
But I forgive you, we have been conditioned to make that compartmentalization very easy.
And it doesn’t take “conspiracy theory” to conclude there was culpability. My favorite was in fact published in the 9/11 commission report(as I mentioned earlier). The Aug. 6th PDB “Bin Ladin determined to Strike in U.S.”, put that in the context of the khobar, tanzania embassy, and Uss COLE. Now put ALL THAT in the context of the words Usama Bin Laden spoke in 1997. Why didn’t they take the PDB seriously?
With that info do you really think it was a good idea (for example) to quash investigation of Bin Laden family members running a “charity” near DC(WAMY)?
What I’m trying to establish is that if there wasn’t criminal complicity, then at the very least what we have seen is the worst leadership in security matters in the history of our country.
Well then why was the administration re-elected?
Compartmentalization of the constituents’ minds, which was facilitated by the mass media’s use of 9/11 as a stimulus to condition people with trauma based mind control, but that is a psychological matter. What I am primarily concerned with is this idea of: official story or conspiracy theory.Where there is no middle ground to assume that the government will obviously lie, omit, and obfuscate. While simultaneously understanding that cult leaders will do the same fucking thing.
The truth lies somewhere in-between I believe.

The Jesus we know did not exist

All quotes are from the book “The Jesus Mysteries” by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy
Its not so much that he didn’t exist, but most stories about him are in fact lies.
A lot of people have been talking about Jesus lately on GNN in various posts. Some people(a majority of Christians) think that the Old Testament and New Testament is not only canon, but meant to be taken literally. This gives rise to things like interpreting revelations as truthful prophecy and belief in completely unreasonable assertions. So I thought I’d set the record straight with a few quick quotes from a book I recently read through. You see it seems that Jesus may or may not have existed. One thing is for sure he was not immaculately conceived, that's right “Christians”, to conceive: a female must have their egg fertilized by a sperm. Who’da thought that in order to get pregnant, one must have an egg fertilized by a member of the same species and opposite sex. Strange that history if full of gods impregnating women. One of them is Zeus(hes the guy on the roof of the Sistine chapel[even though it is supposed to be Jesus’ supernatural father]). The demi-god is as old as conceptions of god.
Ok well lets say that you are in fact dumb enough to believe that a woman became pregnant without fucking. Lets move on to some other interesting historical facts.
What does this look like to you:
(There should be a fish here, but I have trouble putting graphics up here)
I have a suspicion that you said “Jesus fish”, when in actuality it is more accurately described as a Pythagoras fish. It is really just a symbol that is sacred to pagan(pythagorean and other belief systems) geometry. The ratio of height to length is 153:265 ”...a formula known to Archimedes in the third century BCE as ‘the measure of fish’. It is a powerful mathematical tool, being the nearest whole number approximation of the square root of three and the controlling ratio of the quilateral triangle.”
Lets look in to this whole “fish” thing a little more.
“In the Gospel of John, Jesus miraculously helps his disciples land a large catch of fish. This supernatural feat was also performed by Pythagoras in a legend recorded by Prophyry. Pythagoras miraculously predicted the exact number of fish that would be caught, but the story does not record what this number was. In the gospel account Jesus makes no such prediction, but we are told the catch numbers exactly 153 fish. This seems on the face of it to be an irrelevant fact that the gospel writer included just for dramatic color. But scholars have concluded that it is mentioned deliberately and is highly significant.It is likely that the number of fish Pythagoras predicted would be caught is precisely 153. The Pythagoreans were renowned for their knowledge of mathematics and regarded 153 as a sacred number. It is used in a mathematical ratio that Archimedes called ‘the measure of fish’ to produce the mystical symbol of the vesica piscis or ‘sign of the fish’—the intersection of two circles which yields a fish-like shape. This was an ancient Pythagorean symbol that was used by early Christians to represent their faith. The fact that this mystical fish symbol can be produced from the number of fish that were caught in the account of Jesus’ miracle strongly suggests it has been adapted from the original miracle of Pythagoras and that this miracle story encoded sacred geometrical formulae.”
So Pythagoras is one of the original God-men. He was said to be able to still wind and raise the dead. Still, what does that prove?
“Other of Jesus’ miracles were also attributed to the Pagan godman[Osiris-Dionysus]. Asclepius who was followed by Hippocrates, the ‘father of medicine’ was said to have cured the sick and raised the dead. He was known as the ‘lover of men’. A comparison between the wonders of Asclepius and the miracles of Jesus was a standard feature of Pagan anti-Christian writings. In reply, early Christians described Jesus as the physician greater than great Asclepius. The Pagan Celsus and the Christian Origen argued with equal conviction as to the relative merits of Asclepius savior or Jesus savior. Many of the inscriptions to Asclepius were taken over by early Christians by simply replacing his name with that of Jesus.Many of the great prophets of Osiris-Dionysis were renowned as wandering wonder-workers who performed exactly the same supernatural feats attributed to the wandering wonder-worker Jesus.”
Early christians basically plagiarized the lives of other godmen.

Dying and Resurrecting Godmen

“At the heart of the Mysteries were myths concerning a dying and resurrecting godman, who was known by many different names. In Egypt he was Osiris, in Greece Dionysus, in Asia Minor Attis, in Syria Adonis, in Italy Bacchus, in Persia Mithras. Fundamentally all these godmen are the same mythical being. As was the practice from as early as the third century BCE, in this book we will use the combined name Osiris-Dionysys to denote his universal and composite nature, and his particular names when referring to a specific mystery tradition.”
The specifics of Jesus birth, death, and resurrection are all plagiarized.
”-Osiris-Dionysus is God made flesh, the savior and ‘son of god’-His father is God and his mother is a mortal virgin-He is born in a cave or humble cowshed on December 25 before three shepherds-He offers his followers the chance to be born again through the rites of baptism-He miraculously turns water in to wine at a marriage ceremony-He rides triumphantly into town on a donkey while people wave palm leaves to honor him-He dies at Eastertime as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.-After his death he descends to hell, then on the third day he rises from the dead and ascends to heaven in glory.-His followers await his return as the judge during the Last Days-His death and resurrection are celebrated by a ritual meal of bread and wine, which symbolize his body and blood.”
Did you think they were talking about Jesus Christ/Jesus of Nazareth in that last paragraph?Guess what….they weren’t. Those things happened to godmen that existed BC(which stands for before Christ[which means before Jesus existed]).

Diabolical Mimicry

“Pagan critics of early Christianity, such as the satirist Celsus, complained that this recent religion was nothing more than a pale reflection of their own ancient teachings. Early ‘church fathers’ such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, were understandably disturbed and resorted to the desperate claim that these similarities were the result of diabolical mimicry. Using one of the most absurd arguments ever advanced, they accused the Devil of ‘plagiarism by anticipation,’ of deviously copying the true story of Jesus before it had actually happened in an attempt to mislead the gullible!...The obvious explanation is that as early Christianity became the dominant power in the previously Pagan world, popular motifs from Pagan mythology became grafted onto the biography of Jesus. This is a possibility that is even put forward by many Christian Theologians. The virgin birth, for example, is often regarded as an extraneous later addition ‘borrowed’ from Paganism in the same way that Pagan festivals were adopted as Christian saints’ days. This theory is common among those who go looking for the ‘real’ Jesus hidden under the weight of accumulated mythological debris.Attractive as it appears at first, to us this explanation seemed inadequate.”

They sum up the thesis of The Jesus Mysteries:

“The traditional version of history bequeathed to us by the authorities of the Roman Church is that Christianity developed from the teachings of a Jewish Messiah and that Gnosticism was a later deviation. What would happen, we wondered, if the picture were reversed and the Gnosticism viewed as the authentic Christianity, just as the Gnostics themselves claimed? Could it be that orthodox Christianity was a later deviation from Gnosticism and that Gnosticism was a synthesis of Judaism and the Pagan Mystery religion? This was the beginning of the Jesus Mysteries Thesis.”


Fight it for as long as you can “Christians”, but most likely your godman did not exist. In fact most likely he is just an amalgamation of godman archetypes assimilated in to an ancient Jewish culture.
I want to talk about the piece that I found the most interesting and that is “30 pieces of silver”.We all know that “30 pieces of silver” is what Judas get for betraying Jesus. Did you know that this was most likely stolen from Socrates? When Socrates was put on trial for corrupting the youth the judge said if he paid a fine he could live and get off with exile(similar to copping a plea). Socrates stated he would give 1 copper(or whatever tiny throw away denomination) just to be a smart ass and give the judge some shit. As it turns out one of Socrates’ disciples offered the court “30 pieces of silver” to save Socrates life. Although it was done with nothing but benevolence, this follower betrayed Socrates on a deep level. Because payment implied that he was guilty of something and would be perceived as recanting his beliefs. Is it coincidence that the New Testament has 30 pieces of silver?

I leave you with this quote from The Jesus Mysteries:

“The Jesus story does have all the hallmarks of a myth, so could it be that is exactly what it is? After all, no one has read the newly discovered Gnostic gospels and taken their fantastic stories as literally true; they are readily seen as myths. It is only familiarity and cultural prejudice that prevent us from seeing the New Testament gospels in the same light. If those gospels had also been lost to us and only recently discovered, who would read these tales for the first time and believe they were historical accounts of a man born of a virgin, who had walked on water and returned from the dead? Why should we consider the stories of Osiris, Dionysus, Adonis, Atis, Mithras, and the other Pagan Mystery saviors as fables, yet come across essentially the same story told in a Jewish context and believe it to be the biography of a carpenter from Bethlehem?”
Take a close look at this picture:
4th century amulet

Habeus Corpus

Jose Padilla indicted for conspiracy to commit a terrorist act. Padilla’s Case was about to go to the Supreme Court to have his status as an enemy combatant reviewed. Without a doubt the individual who was held, without being charged for three years, was charged because of the upcoming Supreme Court Review.
This individual originally made headlines as a “dirty bomb” suspect (I believe in Chicago). Dirty bombs are a technological impossibility. So we had a U.S. Citizen being held without charges in a navy Brig for three years for allegedly attempting an impossible act. The question is whether letting this case go too the Supreme Court would have been a good thing. With our new justice: which way would it go?
I think the Stare Decisis of “Ex Parte Milligan” would have won out. We need Habeas Corpus and if wartime is the justification then rebuttal is already in Ex Parte Milligan that eternal question: “If wartime is the justification for erosion of our constitutional rights then what the fuck reason is the war being fought for?” Certainly it is not being fought to defend our freedoms. Hopefully the logic contained in such a conundrum as well as the precedent of Ex Part Milligan should lend weight to the advantage of maintaining our rights.
On the other hand the risk that the Supreme Court would fail to check the executive’s unbridled power and create a lasting precedent for the suspension of habeas corpus. This is such a terrible outcome I am at some level relieved that the decision didn’t get to the Supreme Court, to allow the possibility of such a catastrophic blow to our civil liberties. After Bush v. Gore and the decisions on not making public the documents and conversations at Cheney’s NEPDG. The Supreme Court has become co-opted by the executive and there is a chance they would agree with the “enemy combatant” status argument concerning a U.S. citizen allegedly attempting a technologically impossible act. Here is my burning question:
“Does it have to get worse before it gets better?”
Is it:
1.Better to have the Supreme Court unmasked and decried for allowing the executive to become tyrannical; thus making it apparent to everyone that the checks and balances in stalled by our founders have collapsed.
OR
2.The executive be scared of judicial review thus providing marginal protection from the police state (One won’t be held for MORE than 3 years without being charged).
And of course there is a third possible eventuality which is far worse:
3. The Supreme Court agrees that suspension of Habeas Corpus is constitutional. They should make the corruption of the court obvious and the tyranny of the executive apparent, but most people just don’t care.
There is a strong possibility people will just ignore it.
Using terrorism to justify such a worldview and patriotism to justify apathy individuals will compartmentalize away the existence of the fascist police state that will have started ruling over us when Habeas Corpus is suspended.
Our state may have become tyrannical at the point it suspends Habeas Corpus and reverses Ex Parte Milligan.
Will such a debate emerge at the point this happens? Or will a PR blitz and the “mainstream media” help everyone forget the constitutional rights they had?

Intro to the muslim brotherhood, or how i learned to stop worrying and love the ideology of the third reich

“What I’m doing today is doing what I’m doing now: I’m educating a new generation in the CIA that the Muslim Brotherhood was a fascist organization that was hired by Western Intelligence that evolved over time into what we today know as al Qaeda.”John Loftus, Former Deputy Attorney General Link
.
.
.
“Numerous Islamic terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda, have their roots in The Muslim Brotherhood.”Homeland Security website, (removed from web). Cached link
.
.
.
.
“In 1928, six Egyptian workers employed by British military camps in Isma’iliyya, in the Suez Canal Zone in Egypt, visited Hassan al-Banna, a young schoolteacher who they had heard preach in mosques and coffee-houses on the need for an Islamic rewnewal. “Arabs and Muslims have no status and no dignity,” they said. “They are no more than mere hirelings belonging to the foreigners…. We are unable to perceive the road to action as you perceive it….” They therefore asked him to become their leader; he accepted, founding the Society of the Muslim Brothers”The Society of the Muslim Brothers in Egypt: The Rise of an Islamic Mass Movement by Brynjar Lia; Carré, Olivier and Gérard Michaud. 1983. Les Frères musulmans : Egypte et Syrie (1928-1982). Paris: Gallimard.; Mitchell, Richard P. 1969. The Society of the Muslim Brothers. London: Oxford University Presslink)
.
.
.
.
“Here’s how the story began. In the 1920’s there was a young Egyptian named al Bana. And al Bana formed this nationalist group called the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Bana was a devout admirer of Adolph Hitler and wrote to him frequently. So persistent was he in his admiration of the new Nazi Party that in the 1930’s, al Bana and the Muslim Brotherhood became a secret arm of Nazi Intelligence.
The Arab Nazis had much in common with the new Nazi doctrines. They hated Jews; they hated democracy; and they hated the Western culture. It became the official policy of the Third Reich to secretly develop the Muslim Brotherhood as the fifth Parliament, an army inside Egypt.”John Loftus, Former Deputy Attorney General Link
.
.
.
.
Hitler and Mohammad Amin al-Husayni
.
.
Mohammad Amin al-Husayni inspecting his SS
.
.
.
.
Around 100,000 European Muslims fought for Hitler’s Germany in World War II. They included two Bosnian Muslim Waffen SS Divisions, an Albanian Waffen SS Division in Kosovo and Western Macedonia, the Waffengruppe der-SS Krim, formations consisting of Chechen Muslims from Chechnya, and other Muslim formations in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Bosnian Muslims, who were in the Croatian pro-Nazi Ustasha, were especially brutal toward the Christian Serbs.
.
.
.
.
“On October 26, 1954, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Abdul Munim Abdul Rauf, attempted to kill Egypt’s second president Gamal Abdul Nasser . As a result, the organization was outlawed again and over 4000 of its members were imprisoned, including prominent member Sayyid QUTB, who became the most influential intellectual of the group, writing books in prison much like Hitler did before his rise to power.”Homeland Security Website Cache
.
.
.
.
“What the British did then, they sold the Arab Nazis to the predecessor of what became the CIA. It may sound stupid; it may sound evil, but it did happen. The idea was that we were going to use the Arab Nazis in the Middle East as a counterweight to the Arab communists. Just as the Soviet Union was funding Arab communists, we would fund the Arab Nazis to fight against. And lots of secret classes took place. We kept the Muslim Brotherhood on our payroll.
But the Egyptians became nervous. Nasser ordered all of the Muslim Brotherhood out of Egypt or be imprisoned, and we would execute them all. During the 1950’s, the CIA evacuated the Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood to Saudi Arabia. Now when they arrived in Saudi Arabia, some of the leading lights of the Muslim Brotherhood like Azzam, became the teachers in the Madrasas, the religious schools. And there they combined the doctrines of Nazism with this weird Islamic cult, Wahhabiism.”John Loftus
.
.
.
.
Peter Dale Scott Chapter VIII: Al Qaeda and the U.S. Establishment The then leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Sayed Kuttub, a man Faisal sponsored to undermine Nasser, openly admitted that during this period [the 1960s] ‘America made Islam.’
.
.
.
.
“For the Saudis, there was a ruler in charge of Saudi Arabia, and they were the new home of the Muslim Brotherhood, and fascism and extremism were mingled in these schools. And there was a young student who paid attention – - and Azzam’s student was named Osama Bin Ladin. Osama Bin Ladin was taught by the Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood who had emigrated to Saudi Arabia.
In 1979 the CIA decided to take the Arab Nazis out of cold storage. The Russians had invaded Afghanistan, so we told the Saudis that we would fund them if they would bring all of the Arab Nazis together and ship them off to Afghanistan to fight the Russians. We had to rename them. We couldn’t call them the Muslim Brotherhood because that was too sensitive a name. Its Nazi cast was too known. So we called them the Maktab al Khidimat il Mujahideen, the MAK.
And the CIA lied to Congress and said they didn’t know who was on the payroll in Afghanistan, except the Saudis. But it was not true. A small section CIA knew perfectly well that we had once again hired the Arab Nazis and that we were using them to fight our secret wars.
Azzam and his assistant, Osama Bin Ladin, rose to some prominence from 1979 to ‘89, and they won the war. They drove the Russians out of Afghanistan. Our CIA said, “We won, let’s go home!” and we left this army of Arab fascists in the field of Afghanistan.”-John Loftus
.
.
.
.
Peter Dale Scott Chapter VIII: Al Qaeda and the U.S. Establishment :‘What is slowly emerging from Al Qaeda activities in Central Asia in the 1990s is the extent to which they have acted in the interests of both American oil companies and the U.S. government In one way or another, Americans in the 1990s cooperated with al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan, Azerbaijan and Kosovo. In other countries, notably Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Georgia, al Qaeda terrorists have provided pretexts or opportunities for a U.S. military commitment and even troops to follow.’
.
.
.
.
“Osama Bin Ladin’s second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, came from the Egyptian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the results of a Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
There are many flavors and branches, but they are all Muslim Brotherhoods. There is one in Israel. The organization you know as “Hammas” is actually a secret chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood. When Israel assassinated Sheik Yassin a month ago, the Muslim Brotherhood published his obituary in a Cairo newspaper in Arabic and revealed that he was actually the secret leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza.”-John Loftus
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
“The al Qaeda Doctrine is the same as the Arab Nazis held. They hated Jews, they hate democracy, and they hate Westerners for Western culture. Al Qaeda is nothing more than the religious expression of Arab Fascism. We allowed this branch of the Nazi trunk to survive, to flourish, and it has come back to haunt us.”-John Loftus (emphasis mine)
“When one considers the principles that guide the constitutional system of government, one finds that such principles aim to preserve in all its forms the freedom of the individual citizen, to make the rulers accountable for their actions to the people and finally, to delimit the prerogatives of every single authoritative body. It will be clear to everyone that such basic principles correspond perfectly to the teaching of Islam concerning the system of government. For this reason, the Muslim Brothers consider that of all the existing systems of government, the constitutional system is the form that best suits Islam and Muslims.”-Al-Banna, founder of the muslim brotherhood link)
“In an very impressive research effort into the early years of the Muslim Brothers, Lia (a Norwegian scholar) relies on new sources and deep knowledge of his subject to show convincingly just how well that movement does fit the new interpretation. He establishes that it organized in ways novel for Egypt and mobilized elements of the population hitherto neglected. But its greatest importance lay in developing an answer to the rampant European ideologies of the 1930s: in this, the Muslim Brothers began “a lasting process of renewal … in which religion was related to the modern age and all aspects of modern life.” With justification, Lia concludes that the Muslim Brothers’ “reinterpretation of Islam will remain the most far-reaching Islamic renewal this century.””link
There is a body of writing that basically perceives the muslim brotherhood as an innocuous “arab socialist” group.
Qutb developed his distinctive ideas after the Egyptian Ministry of Education, for which he worked as an official, sent him to the USA in 1948-51 to study American methods of schooling. He returned to Egypt with an uncompromising hatred for the West and all its works. Qutb’s rejection of the West was not that of the conservative concerned with preserving his culture’s traditions against foreign encroachments, but rather that of the ‘born-again Muslim’ who having adopted or absorbed many modern influences makes a show of discarding them in his search for personal identity and cultural authenticity. After his arrest, Qutb wrote his famous work, Signposts, which is the first clear statement of the aims and worldview of the sects we now think of as Islamist, and is required reading for the cadre of these groups. Qutb defined the regime itself as part of the ‘infidel’ problem. Society was divided into the Party of God and the Party of Satan. The Islamist movement was surrounded by a swamp of ignorance and unbelief (jahiliyya, the term used to describe the society of Arabia before the coming of Muhammed). The creation of an Islamic government was not just a culturally preferable alternative, but a divine imperative. The method of creating it would be jihad, or holy war. (For some Muslims, jihad can mean private spiritual striving, but for Islamist groups it increasingly means, very literally, war.) It is unclear if Qutb himself would have wholeheartedly approved of the modern groups who claim his legacy; but he spelled out the main themes of modern militant Islamism.
“Mitchell was well-informed through his personal contacts with prominent Brothers, and was also the first Western scholar to draw heavily on Arabic sources. Mitchell, like many others of his time, believed that the Society had been finally suppressed in 1954, by which time all its leaders had been jailed or executed. In 1968, he believed that ‘the essentially secular reform nationalism ƒ in vogue in the Arab world would continue until the earlier appeal of the Society eventually is lost’ (Mitchell, p.xxiii-xxiv). And, indeed, in the 1960s, such a conclusion was fully in accord with all observable political and social realities. However, in the 1970s and ‘80s, the situation changed dramatically and, in the 1990s, analysts were agreeing that ‘Islamic activism will be a major feature of regional politics into the 21st century’ (Robin Wright, quot. in Voll, J.O. Foreword, in Mitchell (1993), p.x.). Consequently this timely (1993) reissue of Mitchell’s classic work incorporates a foreword by leading US Islamic scholar John Voll discussing the subsequent history and continued significance of the Society.”link
link
Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), the Egyptian ideologue of modern Islamism and a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, was one of the first to combine the two strands. His writings have been read by millions of Muslims around the world and have been a major influence in the development of contemporary Muslim anti-Semitism. Qutb used racist stereotypes and forgeries of Western anti-Semitism such as the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” (translated into Arabic and widely distributed in the Muslim world) [7] . As a result, Islamism today sees itself involved in a cosmic struggle against “the Jews” which has to fought to the bitter end: “Therefore the struggle between Islam and the Jews continues in force and will continue, because the Jews will be satisfied only with the destruction of this religion (Islam).” [8] For Qutb, modern-day Jews are identical to their forefathers at the time of Muhammad, who “confronted Islam with Enmity from the moment that the Islamic state was established in Medina. They plotted against the Muslim Community from the first day it became a Community.” [9] Since then, says Qutb, all Jews have always been wicked enemies of Islam, and contemporary Islam is attacked by the very same Jews using the same “machinations and double dealings which discomfited the Early Muslims . . . The Jews continue – through their wickedness and double-dealing – to lead this (Muslim) community away from its religion and to alienate it from its Qur’an” [10] . Qutb argues that Jews are inherently evil because all through the ages they have rebelled against God “in the most disgustingly aggressive manner . . .”. As a result: “From such creatures who kill, massacre and defame prophets one can only expect the spilling of human blood and dirty means which would further their machinations and evilness.” According to Qutb, Jews are characterized by ingratitude, selfishness, fanaticism and hatred for all others. They foment dissension in their host societies and exploit all disasters to profit from the misery of others. They also utilize usury to accumulate wealth, infiltrate societies, and dominate the whole world
link

Autobiographical Masturbation, or intro to the intro to the muslim brotherhood

I first learned of the Muslim Brotherhood from Hicks’ book The Big Wedding which I suggest for any individual who wants to take a look at some seedier stories surrounding September 11th. He does some great research and interviewing of individuals who could be considered “less credible” so you have to take it with much salt. Fortunately Hicks’ has what appears to be an incisive mind and helps cut through a lot of the bullshit. He lets you know the guy he is talking to is shady and he does one thing that makes me respect him as a writer. As Buck 65 says “I never underestimate the audience’s intelligence” Hicks’ did not do this with “The Big Wedding”. Instead he compressed a vast breadth and depth of facts in to a well written tool for the information guerrilla which can fit in your back pocket.
I remember a time when I did not “believe” that individuals within our own government would possibly engage in an activity such as 9/11. The pure audacity of it for one thing, how could they get away with it, and why would they risk their power?
Before I really delved in to the historical investigation of this event. I already knew and “believed” that these events would be manipulated by the individuals in power, regardless of party or position, to further their own subjective goals. It even seemed highly plausible that there was negligence and incompetence. But…foreknowledge? Culpability? Such conclusions seemed farfetched.
RING
RING
RING
I opened my eyes to hear the scream of the telephone on the floor of my dormitory. My girlfriend rolled out of bed and walked around the divider between my “bedroom” to the outside of e-suite. It was the largest room on campus that a single person occupied, somehow I had managed to get out of having a roommate. “Hello” She asked in to the receiver.I rolled over pressing my eyes shut hoping to fall asleep quickly. Hoping that if I fell asleep quickly it would somehow delay the alarm on my watch that stared down at me from the window sill. The whole area glowed with a piercing blindness from the morning sun, which made it impossible to see the time it read without committing myself completely to lucidity and consciousness-“A Plane Did What?!” She stated incredulously.-my eyebrow raised slightly as the aural stimuli from the next room reached my brain. I gave it a small percentage of my conscious attention. That is to say I dedicated what little I could spare as long as I could remain somewhat asleep.
CLICK
The TV turned on. She kicked the reel from my Dreamcast’s Bass Fishing game and sent it skipping over discarded trash and empty beer cans along the floor. “oh my god. nada, wake up, come here!”The tone of her voice and the attention I had dedicated so far told me this was more important than my chronic morning infatuation with sleep.
I stepped in to the room and rubbing my eyes stared at the television. A smoking building. Where? “A plane flew in to a building.” She stated matter-of-factly. “Wow, now that is a drunk pilot.” I let out as I collapsed on the couch next to her.
Then the channels that seemed like they had only just appeared in the 2000 elections took charge of the oversight for my stimuli consumption. The 24-propaganda disseminators which would be telling us what issues to think about and what their corporate owners subjectively define “normativity” as.
I was smirking when it happened.
The “journalists” came from every direction “literally crawling out of little holes in the ground” pointing their cameras and giving live feeds. Every single aircraft that would fly by within sight would be videotaped. While following the path of said aircraft the “journalist” will make statements which in general look like these:“oh no, here comes another plane right now!”“uh oh, we got a plane coming in hold on!”“OH! OH! watch out! plane!”Every “journalist” wanted to be the one who saw and pointed out the death and destruction first. This was award time and they couldn’t have been happier.
I was smirking when it happened.
BOOM!!!!!
All day they “speculated”. All day my friends and I just pointed out the bullshit that was being called “the news”. Everyone in the country was watching it. Everyone in the country saw the replay over and over. Every single subjective entity in this country was force-fed the same overwhelmingly traumatizing imagery and then spoon-fed bullshit for the next few weeks.
I didn’t know what to fully make of it, but the thought of collusion never crossed my mind.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..It was a while before I got back to Chicago. My friend and I went to see the Atmosphere, Eyedea and Abilities, Mr. Dibbs, and Sage Francis show at the Fireside. The fireside is gone now, but it was a broken down bowling alley with the bar still intact. Not the greatest of venues, but it had been the purveyor of many an epic punk and hip-hop show.
The ceiling kept coming off in pieces on the artists, the legs of the table for the decks were wobbly, and the worst part: every once in awhile the mic would cut off.It was a fun atmosphere(no pun intended) the artists made fun of the crowd for not hearing of any of them but Eyedea, because he was on the HBO blaze battle. Freestyling incorporating the general shittiness of the venue in their rhymes.Lots of energy, great music, and light hearted response to the ceiling collapsing on them.
In general a great show.
I had never heard of Sage Francis, except for I understood he was on the ticket for the show. So I was skeptical when he got on stage and launched in to a spoken word session. I’m not a huge fan of spoken word, but what can make it even harder to deal with spoken word is when the mic keeps getting cut off. A few songs in to his set he pulls a necktie out of his pocket.
“This is something that’s gonna be on the next album” he said as he put the necktie on.
And belted it out:“Makeshift patriot the flagshop is out of stock/I hang myself at half mastMakeshift patriot the flagshop is out of stock/I hang myself at half mastComing live from my own funeral, beautiful weather offered a nice shineWhich is suitable for a full view of a forever altered skylineWhen times like these arrive I freestyle biased opinions every other sentence Journalistic ethics slip when I pass them off as objective “Don’t give me that ethical shit.” I’ve got exclusive, explicit images to present to impressionable American kids And it’s time to show this world how big our edifice is! That’s exactly what they attacked when a typically dark skinned Disney villain Used civilians against civilians and charged the Trojan horses into our buildings Using commercial aviation as instruments of destruction Pregnant women couldn’t protect their children Wheelchairs were stairway obstructions Now have to back pedal…from the shower of glass and metal Wondering how after it all settles we’ll find who provided power to radical rebels The Melting Pot seems to be calling the kettle black when it boils over But only on our own soil so the little boy holds a toy soldier.. And waits for the suit and tie to come home. We won’t wait ‘til he’s older before we destroy his hopes for a colder war to end “Now get a close up of his head” Makeshift PatriotThe Flag Shop Is Out of Stock/I Hang Myself at Half Mast ”How does my hair look” Makeshift Patriot The Flag Shop Is Out of Stock/I Hang Myself at Half Mast “Run that tape back” Makeshift Patriot The Flag Shop Is Out Of Stock/I Hang Myself at Half Mast “It Looks just like a movie” It’s the make shift The patriot The Flag Shop is Out of Stock I hang myself “while the stock markets crash” The city is covered in inches of muck I see some other pictures of victims are up Grieving mothers are thinking their children are stuck Leaping lovers are making decisions to jump While holding hands…to escape the brutal heat Sometimes in groups of three The fall out was far beyond the toxic cloud where people look like debris But all they saw after all was said…beyond the talking heads Was the bloody dust with legs looking like the walking dead calling for meds but Hospitals are overwhelmed. Volunteers need to go the hell home Moments of silence for fire fighters were interrupted by cell phones Who’s gonna to make that call to increase an unknown death toll? It’s the one we rally behind He’s got a megaphone…and he’s promising to make heads roll we cheer him on, but asbestos is affecting our breath control The lesser we know…the more they fabricate…the easier it is to sell souls There is a new price on freedom, so buy into it while supplies last. Changes need to be made;No more curbside baggage,Seven pm curfew,Racial profiling will continue with less bitching.We’ve unified over who to kill, so until I find more relevant scripture to quote,Remember, our god is bigger, stronger, smarter, and much wealthier. So wave those flags with pride, especially the white part. We’re sellin’ addictive 24 hour candle light vigils on TV’s Freedom will be defended…at the cost of civil liberties The viewers are glued to television screens Stuck… cause lots of things seem too sick I use opportunities to pluck heart strings for theme music I’ll show you which culture to pump your fist at, which foot is right to kiss we don’t really know who the culprit is yet…but he looks. Like. This. we know who the heroes are. They’re not the xenophobes who act hard “We taught that dog to squat, how dare he do that shit in our own back yard!” They happened to scar our financial state and char our landscape Can you count how many times so far I’ve ran back this same damn tape? While a camera man creates news and shoves it down our throats on the West Bank With a ten second clip put on constant loop to provoke US angst So get your tanks and load your guns and hold your sons in a family huddle ’cause even if we win this tug of war and even the score…humanity struggles There’s a desperate need of blood for what’s been uncovered under the rubble Some of them dug for answers in the mess…but the rest were looking for trouble”
As he approached the climax of the song he pulled upwards on his necktie, until it had transformed fully in to a noose.
Great show, but pretty melodramatic was my impression. But those lyrics… those lyrics.
“Now I have to back pedal…from the shower of glass and metal Wondering how after it all settles we’ll find who provided power to radical rebels”
“We cheer him on, but asbestos is affecting our breath controlThe lesser we know, The more they fabricate, the easier it is to sell souls”
Then finally one that would reveal its meaning later:“There’s a desperate need of blood for what’s been uncovered under the rubble Some of them dug for answers in the mess…but the rest were looking for trouble”.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.Got my hands on a laptop a few years later. My friend explained to me that he discovered something called “Torrents” which was a (so far) legal peer-to-peer file sharing system. It worked so quickly that you could download movies. Well I soon found out that getting movies that people didn’t want you to have were actually harder to get. On the other hand movies that people wanted others to see were easy. That is how I filled a 100gb mp3 player with documentaries. I didn’t discriminate and found a wealth of movies concerned with things considered “propaganda” like global conspiracies and secret societies. I had always read a little here and there on the general ideas. Esotericism, dispensationalism, and Masonic myth. The Man Who Would Be King is what piqued my interest in Masonic mythology(which obviously started out as a Rudyard Kipling book[who authored the mythologies on animal origins which I used to love]).
But most movies that centered around simply proving an “illuminati” were boring as fuck and ridiculously slanted. These movies were doing one thing consistently: Underestimating the audience’s intelligence.
To believe a single secret society presided over all events of historical significance without a single internal revolution or political-infighting is naïve to say the least.
But, to create a movie with the purpose of making a person believe a single secret society presided over all events of historical significance without a single internal revolution or political-infighting is going to be rife with manipulations, because it is not possible to conclude such a massive thing without first properly understanding the preponderance of evidence and secondly dwelling on the evidence.
For the most part I didn’t really get through any of those movies. The reason I mention them is, because in order to get to the juicy part I had to cut the gristle and the fat out. Just because you have to sit through Alex Jones yelling about the illuminati, does not mean that the citations he offers are any less credible, because of it. You can always disagree with a person’s conclusion, but facts are facts.
But also mythology is interesting and comedic, it is funny to see how David Icke views the world. Not funny like “what a sad person” but funny like “what a different perspective”.
So after watching some random conspiracist movie they mentioned 911 and I wrote down the citation. I realized I liked the 911 information, but I do not “believe” there was a conspiracy or direct culpability. I only “believed” at the most there was negligence.
So I downloaded a plethora of 911 based documentaries, still really only for the novelty of seeing where this mythology of a Bavarian secret society running things would say about 911.
I would leave them on while I played Halo 2 with a friend of mine. Dedicating just as much attention as I could without hurting my performance in the game.
I learned I couldn’t stand Alex Jones very quickly. The constant yelling, the cheesy graphics, and the delusions of grandeur just got to me and I found myself fast-forwarding a lot. What I mean by delusions of grandeur is in fact a symptom of schizophrenia and a belief in your own greatness. It embraces the mythological archetype of Odysseus and is not a shortcut to happiness. Labeling others as “sheep” constantly is an effort to condition a person with the stimuli that people who aren’t illuminati acolytes are less than human. This is what Jones does by constantly referring to “outsiders” as sheep. He teaches you that there is no one else to trust and he teaches you that believing in him is superior. Not only that but this dehumanization is a psychological precursor to war, genocide, and murder to dehumanize the enemy.
Well I kept track of what little citations he offered despite my personal distaste for his style. I quickly developed a favorite movie, essentially the one I could watch more than once.
It was called “The Truth and Lies of 911”. It started with a clip of some guy giving shit to CIA director John Deutch in a public hearing about drug smuggling operations that were being overseen by the CIA. It had this guy Peter Dale Scott in it who has written extensively on drugs, oil, and war . Most importantly though it had more citations than you could shake a stick at.
The one thing I noticed about Ruppert is he didn’t tell you his conclusion. His conclusion remains mired in mystery throughout the film and on his website. It was not peak oil that needed to convince me what the Iraq war was fought over. Just ask Dave Chappelle as “black bush”:Reporter-“What about people who say you’re only interested in the middle-east for oil?” Black Bush-“what? Huh? Oil? Who said somthin’ about oil bitch, you cookin’? oil!? Man I dunno what the-“ knocks over water pitcher and runs “-come on yah’ll get outta here!”
Ruppert had many arguments that were not facts. That would need to be proven with evidence and the only way to understand the evidence is to read it. For example: The CIA is wall street. The government is complicit with drug trafficking. The CIA’s director has to OK the director of the ISI.
One thing he didn’t do is cram stimuli down your throat(without citations) and insult your intelligence if you didn’t see how it was all an illuminati plot.
So I printed this out. Started looking at the citations and maybe pulling them up while watching the documentary. I wanted to see if he was exaggerating anything.
He pulled out The Grand ChessBoard by Zibigniew Brezezenski and read a few quotes. The quotes were incredible. Obviously not something that makes you decide there was direct culpability, but makes it quite obvious that numerous intellectuals and even elite factions had been “waiting” for this. The PNAC’s statement in “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” was usually the one focused on at my sources of information intake. The PNAC were neo-cons and right wingers, but Zibig…he was something else. I didn’t know much about him, except that he was at the Oslo Accords from a PBS documentary on Israel-Palestine. Then I remembered where I had read his name. The adbusters hope and memory issue . It had a quote from Brezezinski taken from Le Nouvel Observateur .
“Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? TheTaliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-upMoslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of thecold war?”
My question is are the two connected?
Now don’t assume that by me asking these questions above evidences that I have concluded on any of them or that I “believe” a certain story over others.
I only say that because there is one question I’d like to ask Brzezinski, and that is if he knows who the Muslim Brotherhood is.
If he answered yes to this question, I would have to follow with: “Are you aware of the connection between what intelligence agencies refer to as ‘Al-Qaeda’ and this entity The Muslim Brotherhood?”
I started to look in to Ruppert’s background to see if there were any blatant conflicts of interest. What I found is that there was nothing, but a few smear articles written about his episode with John Deutch. Calling him a “conspiracy theorist” simply because he had said that the government is trafficking drugs. Never addressing the points he made they continued to rehash the argument that he had stated “the drug trafficking was happening to get black people addicted to crack-cocaine” ”(which by the way is exactly what Gary Webb was smeared with).
This was of course not what he was saying.
But, there are people who attempt to use such tiny fractions of attention to manipulate. Individuals who want to convince you in 90 minutes that a Bavarian secret society has been pre-eminent for a few thousand years they are one type. The other type is the individual who misconstrues and smears.
They take pleasure in their puckishness and mistake it for being clever, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
They know that most people will opt for the easiest psychological way out. By saying that Ruppert was arguing “the drug trafficking was happening to get black people addicted to crack-cocaine” he gives people the easy way out. He states that he knows that Ruppert did this. Like all the reader would have to do is track it down and read it. If the reader did that he would undoubtedly come to the same conclusion as the author. That is how it is presented.
So most people are not going to read what Ruppert said. They will conclude he is a moron and a conspiracy theorist, therefore anything he has to say can be rejected prima facie.
There are others who have learned this tactic and use it to great effect on the collective consciousness known as the internet .
Those are the first of your enemies in your search for truth. The obfuscators. Who are made up of two sects:The individuals who would be getting a check for their smear tactics if they were smart.AndThe individuals who want the psychologically easy way out.
They are the individuals who label people “conspiracy theorist” for asking hard to answer and scary questions. But these obfuscators suffer from the same symptom of schizophrenia that the conspiracists do.
No one is normal.
The other enemy is the attention whores and the cult leaders. They also would be getting a check if they were smart. People like Fintan Dunne who labels a swath of independent research outlets as CIA fronts without evidence obviously. These are the people who condemn individuals who are helpful to our search for truth as disinformation or CIA assets. They are also the ones who give more credibility to the theory the more “hokey” it is. Such as The Hologram Theory .
It disturbed me to see a view on Ruppert’s credibility from an individual who wrote for FTW and the comments that followed.
They(hopsicker, emory, and GNNers) have a point.
Ruppert didn’t mention the Muslim Brotherhood in the Rubicon.
In fact when I read The Big Wedding, I was initially in a state of disbelief when I came across the chapter Hicks wrote on the Muslim Brotherhood.
I would like to know Ruppert’s response to the criticism that he did not include research pertaining to the Muslim Brotherhood.
I had to check it out for myself to see if what Hicks was saying stood up. It added a whole other element to the story that I had never been exposed to.
This element should be explored.
Much like Brezezinski’s statements are the flipside of the PNAC.
This Muslim Brotherhood information is coming from right wing news sources and not being covered in other places.
Which could make it the flipside of the “neo-cons share the most direct culpability(i.e. dick cheney)” which for the most part was circulating through left wing sources.
Could they both be red herrings?
Why question the answers?
Is lucidity that important? Is consciousness? Is truth?

911 truth movement amorphous blob of decentralized intelligence gatherers

How does the saying go: “Truth goes through three stages first it is ridiculed, then violently opposed, and finally accepted”.
I guess we are still in the first stage of truth for the atrocities that happened on 9/11/01, but I believe we are in a transitory phase in to the second step. My most convincing evidence is the new Zogby poll .Although those 40% may not self-indentify as members of the “9/11 truth movement”, they are “members”. Anyone who wants the truth about what happened on 9/11 is part of the 9/11 truth movement. One does not have to have a workable theory on what happened, one can know jack shit about 9/11 as long as they desire to know more: they are part of the 9/11 truth movement.
Well if that is true, shouldn’t there be a name for people who do not want more information to be ascertained regarding 9/11/01?
Lets see if I can come up with a workable phrase by the end of this blog.
An article goes up somewhere in a mainstream news outlet: “9/11 truth movement are the same as holocaust deniers” from the Chicago Sun-Times or “9/11 truth movement is ”...Like those who often write to tell me that the Pentagon, the FBI and/or the intelligence agencies are following them, that they are mind control victims whose lives have been ruined by directed energy weapons in space or the transmitters implanted in their teeth…” from the Washington Post.When a pseudo-journalist working for a corporate “legal person” espousing the political and worldview of that “legal person” puts up pieces labeling 40% of the United States as “holocaust deniers” or schizophrenics with delusions of persecution, they are making a dumb mistake. Well they are either making a dumb mistake or for some reason using libel to hurt the movement. Do they really want to call 40% of their readers paranoid schizophrenics?
Wait a second though, the two articles I mentioned…are…not…even…articles. In fact they are op-ed opinion pieces. These individuals weren’t asked to cover this, they were forced to by having their email box filled to the the brim with links from “loose change dittoheads” and others. Probably sent there by somewhere close to 40% of the population.
What happens after such an op-ed goes up?What happens after a corporate legal person conditions the populace with a “9/11 truth movement”=holocaust deniers meme? Or creates a new term “9/11 rejectionists”(much like the label “Eco-Terrorism”, because it can be used both ways)?
Well I’ll tell you how it doesn’t go:The “rejectionists”(fuck I can’t even use the word, because it applies far more aptly to the Arkins of the world). OK the 9/11 truth movement/holocaust deniers don’t roll over and take it. They are nutcases and crazy, so there should be so few of them. The comments board on these articles light up and 30 or so comments go up. The author smiles to himself and lets out a sigh of triumph.
He has done what few others could do, he displayed the courage to say that “journalists’” willful ignorance of a story gives him gratification.Now if someone on the street told me it gave him/her gratification that no one covered stories pertaining to 9/11, I would sock that motherfucker in the face and begin stomping on their ribs before their body even hit the pavement. The more articles the better. The more information the better. There is no reason to oppose knowledge, (gonna get paranoid for a second here[but also logical]) unless the person opposing has a vested interest in the truth not coming to light. There is really no other reason a person would take their valuable time to try to stop people from learning about 9/11 and/or teaching others about 9/11.
So William Arkin signs back on to his internet, hes gonna go look at the comments on his blog over his coffee. Oh looks like a “holocaust denier” took the first comment posted by an individual named ‘no’:
“what research have you done?
it is so easy to target a group, single them out, paint them as some evil enemy with some sort of unknown motive, and defile them without providing any substance whatsoever – so much easier than doing any real research or providing any real information to your reader base.
perhaps in the least you should recognize that over half of new yorkers want a new investigation, and that the jersey girls who faught for the original investigation called the 911 commission a ‘hallow failure’.
so lets see, bush and cheney wanted to limit the scope of the investigation, waited 400+ days to allow an independent investigation, refused to testify in public or under oath, had to testify together, and on the morning of 911 the secret service didn’t move a finger after the 2nd plane hit -well after the secret service was on the call bridge aware of multiple hijackings – oh, and the commission was a lame whitewash..
yeah, those that question 911 are so stupid – give me a break.
so i ask, what research have you done?”
hmmm, Arkin thinks to himself “god damn it, stop being so reasonable. You’re supposed to be talking about aliens and mind control”Moving along to the next comment Arkin reads:
“If 9/11 is an open and shut case, why does one of the official reports say:
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.
(FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)”
“shit” arkin says to himself “the comment has a cite! I don’t even have a cite in my entire op-ed! Thats not crazy thats just a citation, this next comment better not be a ‘conspiracy theorist’. Or at least if it is I hope they’re writing an opinion like me, because op-ed is the highest form of journalism and citations make me look bad!”
So arkin gets through 7 comments not a single one supporting him when he gets to this piece of gold written by Jon Gold:“It’s obviously a sad day in America when the people have to tell the Press what’s going on in this country.”
Sooo Arkin reads through some 24 comments before he reaches one that seems to be on his side.
”...First, I would like to thank each of you for your contributions to aiding the psychological well-being of the citizens of the United States. Second, I pray that each of you take an interest in this topic so as to lay to rest the 9/11 truth movement as merely conspiratorial nonsense, or, “bridge the threshold” and reveal, though terribly disturbing, a truth that can become the bedrock of necessary knowledge so as to truly allow for the healing of our collective psyche and secure a more prosperous humanity. ”
“Wait” arkin says “Hes not really agreeing with me, he is saying everyone should take interest and research 9/11 so we can expose it as a conspiracy theory if thats what it is.”So Arkin again begins to read, looking for one comment which agrees with him.
Bam! Got one! after almost 30 comments here is a dittohead who will repeat his phrase of “rejectionist” and say this:
”...It is time that you in the media start doing your job and point out the idiocy of this notion as well as the lunacy of those who think 9-11 was some government plot”
THere are over a hundred comments, but there are single digit comments in suport of Arkin, which brings me to my point:
THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT IS HAWT!!!
This amoebaesque monolith of people with only one unifying central motivation: “Give me information on 9/11” is a juggernaut so unstoppable it could send the immovable blob) flying.
The truth movement suffers from internal struggles 24/7. Face it, they hate eachother, they’re always arguing amongst eachother this guy says planes were holograms, this lady says there were demolition charges, and this lady says there was only foreknowledge. Put those three in a room together and they’ll tear eachother apart. But give them(in the words of the PNAC) a “catalyzing” event, a common enemy. For example: Arkin, and watch the show. Much like throwing a cow in a pool of pirahnas. They are proud of the research they’ve done and what they know. They are proud that they have the courage to stand up to bullies who receive “gratification” from willful “ignorance” of 9/11.
I just wanted to write something about how proud I am of this “movement” which basically doesn’t exist. It is the most decentralized group of people that has ever been referred to as a “movement”. There are hundreds of 9/11 truth sites out there, within each one of those cites are hundreds of differing opinions on what the truth of 9/11 is.
The only thing that identifies us is that we each did our time. We each dedicated pieces of our lives to absorbing and analyzing information regarding 9/11. After a certain amount of information it becomes quite obvious that there was official foreknowledge in the white house, pentagon, and various other places.
We rush to defend eachother and Arkin’s piece is a great example.
As official foreknowledge becomes “violently opposed” rather than “ridiculed”, it will also signify a larger sea change. We are the heralds of the MSM’s(mainstream medias) collapse. We are the next generation of information consumers who have been burned out on bullshit. We will no longer pay money to buy a vehicle for advertisements(newspaper) in order to hear a corporate entity trumpet its’ worldview, through a hundred different names of “journalists”(see Lapdog ).
Instead we will report the news and we will share information with eachother. If it works it will bring democracy back to the United States. Without a few major corporations having a stranglehold on information, people may somehow start hearing THE TRUTH. Which means they will be able to hold their representatives accountable, which is a good thing no matter how you stand on 9/11.
There are 2 schools of thought on 9/11.
(1) I want a new investigation and more information from my government which refused to declassify important information the public should know.
(2) I do not want an investigation and I do not want more information on 9/11.
What do we call the people who refuse to look at the piles of shoes or piles of gold teeth what do we call them? I think the phrase is “holocaust deniers”.
So what should we call the people who refuse to look at the aug. 6th pdb, the phoenix memo, coleen rowley, vreeland, randy glass, ISI, mahmood ahmed, umar saed sheikh, Delta Oil, khalid bin mahfouz, insider trading, war games, mujahidin, etc. etc. ?Although Arkin wanted to label category (1) people as “9/11 rejectionists” and Neil Steinberg wanted to label category (1) people as “9/11 deniers”.
My only question is: Why would category (1) people be more “rejectionists” or “deniers” than category (2)?
If you don’t have the balls to investigate 9/11 then at least don’t try to libel us for desring information.
Don’t ever, EVER think you have the moral high ground, because you ignore information.Look at those pictures of the piles of baby shoes, burn that image in to your fucking retinas, never forget.
Absorb information about how it happened, how that pile of baby shoes ended up there, how the melted down jewelry found its way to swiss banks. How a madman got emergency powers and how the people didn’t stop it.
Study 9/11, absorb information about how it happened and why.How a madman got emergency warmaking powers and people didn’t stop it.
I’d like to end with William Arkin’s quote:
“Though 9/11truth.org and the blogosphere continues to rail against the mainstream media for ignoring their issue and their cause, the only gratifying element of the story is the restraint so far shown by the media in ignoring the thinly masked craziness and the Internet hype.”
”...the only gratifying element of the story is the restraint so far shown by the media in ignoring the thinly masked craziness and the Internet hype.”
Thats right my freinds, Arkin is gratified that 9/11 doesn’t receive media.
As much as that angers you, go to his article and see how he got pwned by 9/11 truthers. The movement is real and not internet hype. We have no newsletter, no fund raising, and no talking points. The truth is obvious and that is why there are so many of us. The lies of the 9/11 commission report were so blatant that 40% of United Statesians want a new investigation. We are so decentralized we don’t even know eachother’s real names, but the funny thing is we’re going to win despite the fact we have ABSOLUTELY NO FORMAL organization.
“ridiculed, violently opposed, accepted”