From No Lies Radio

Communications [censored] James Tracy of Memory Hole Blog wonders why the foundation-funded “left” is so touchy about 9/11 truth and other subjects that might displease their paymasters. He wonders whether even the best of the foundation-funded media-watchdog groups, Project Censored, “is censoring non progressive-left outlets, including Infowars, while promoting nonsense like the SPLC’s ‘hate map’ and climate non-science.”

We also discuss the strange case of Noam Chomsky, an accomplished critic of war and empire who exhibits guilty demeanor while covering up deep events like JFK and 9/11. (See Guilty demeanor: The private 9/11 emails of Noam Chomsky.) Towards the end of the show, [censored] Tracy explains how he managed to get the electric company to take the toxic “smart meter” off his house.

Leave a Reply

22 thought on “No Lies Radio, March 7, 2014”
  1. I find it interesting how MSM and democrats are always pushing global warming.

    Plastics pollution could be far worse on our planet than climate change. Do some research on how much plastic we dump into the ocean each year and the problems it is inflicting on ocean life.

    Why does MSM never talk about plastics pollution? I have my theory, just wondering others.

    1. Bill, your comment reminded me of that Japanese guy I heard about some months ago who developed a small device you can stuff waste plastic into and convert it back into oil. A quick search “Japan plastic oil machine” gave me this article:

      When I first heard about it, I thought about that huge floating island of trash in the Pacific: why don’t the green-weenies go there on their Greenpeace ships, and start actually removing the trash, day and night, converting to all into oil? If they really love the environment, and they DO have ships that cross the ocean (they use them to pester other ships, primarily), why not actually do some good that can be quantified? They could say something along the lines: It will take 20 years to convert all this garbage into oil, but middle class people will be able to drive a hundred million miles back and forth to work with the oil we have reclaimed from it–and the miles of floating rubbish will be gone.

      I wonder if any of them thought of that, and if not, why not?

      1. That is an excellent idea Patrick. It’s probably not going to happen because of green peace. It makes too much sense and is too practical for any gov body to suggest or fund. I hate the idea of floating garbage in the ocean almost as much as nuclear fallout. Think of the jobs it would create! The adventure! It makes me wish I had a ship.

        1. Susan, you are following the blind (Patrick). Please see my response and do some research on Patrick & MSM’s “floating island.”

      2. Patrick, your ignorance on this topic is obvious. The MSM that you have been so brainwashed by wants you to believe its an island. From your cartoony perspective of a ‘huge floating island’, I’m also thinking of developing some homes on the island.

        Actually, its not an island, most of the plastic particles have been in the ocean for many years, slowly breaking down. The pieces are very small. Jump over to Wikipedia and get a quick update on your “floating island.”

        Single-use containers and plastics pollution are huge problems, especially as third-world and developing countries get their hands on plastic bags. Plastic bags are also causing significant problems with sewer systems.

        We are a wasteful nation – eat, throw and go. There is nothing conservative about our wasteful habits that big corporations and media have handed us. If we had a true conservative leader, he or she would talk about our irresponsible waste and energy use.

        1. Sorry about that, Bill. Forgive my ignorance. I assumed that those reports are true, because I have heard them so many times, and have never seen them refuted. Of course, there are lots of memes out there that get reinforced that way.

          One great thing about MHB is knowledgeable people helping those of us who don’t know items like this are lies.

          Anyway, I agree with you about the fact of overall plastic pollution; I just thought that Pacific thing was the worst example.

          And to think that I am always skeptical about anything the media say. I can get taken in, too!

        2. No worries Patrick. Sorry for jumping your case too. Sometimes I get a little worked up over this issue.

    2. Well, here in Los Angeles County they have done something. As of January 1st this year no more plastic bags at grocery stores and other retail outlets selling food. If you want paper bags they’ll cost you 10 cents apiece. People became retrained real fast and now bring their own bags of all sorts. It works just fine.

      Now, if they only would outlaw chemtrails next.

      1. Anne, plastic bags from the grocery story are just the tip of the ice burg. Look around in your every day life and see how much plastic we throw away. Here’s some examples. My wife buys organic and our eggs only come in plastic cartons rather than the flimsy cardboard. I was at Sams and they were selling gift cards. Each gift card was wrapped in a 12 x 18″ plastic container. A handful of gift cards wrapped in a pallet load of plastic. Incredible. Look at laundry detergent bottles. Those beasts would last years as a kool-aid jug. Some stupid ice cream company thinks its a good idea to sell ice cream in plastic containers. I bought it once and use the container for screws. I’m not even going to get into fast food… Except for the crappy plastic toys with kids meals. Kids play with those pieces of crap for 10 minutes and move on. When I picture the McDonalds manufacturing plant, I also imagine the other end of the conveyer belt dumping plastic garbage toys into a land fill 24/7.

        Business knows they are irresponsible and damaging the earth. But they are racing for the dollar bill. Some companies do the right thing, and more people are seeing this, but the huge corporations could care less. There’s a tree hugger store near my place that allows you to refill your detergent bottle. Its part of a refill station for various household liquids.

        1. Bill Fred and others – I agree, the plastic grocery bags are just the tip of the burg. I used them for scooping up cat litter. Now I have resorted to using the plastic bags we purchase fruits and vegetables in. There is still plastic garbage bags, shampoo bottles, plastic furniture, plastic toys, plastic wrappings, zip lock bags and on and on. Plastic is here to stay, although many years ago I eliminated as much plastic in my life as I could, such as in kitchen gadgets. There are alternatives.

          Living here in Santa Monica for four months now, a temporary stay, I am surprised to see all the trash and litter everywhere. This city, official population 90,000 something, is supposed to be in the forefront of Agenda 21 and sustainability, yet the overall appearance leaves something to be desired. Along the highways and byways in Los Angeles there is litter galore. Santa Monica has been designated a homeless person sanctuary and that is obvious everywhere here. Being homeless in Santa Monica is preferable to being homeless in Detroit though.

          Luckily there is an organic (if organic means anything anymore) store just around the corner here, a minute’s walk which is good because the small lot is always full. I have to say that I’m amazed at the quality of their products, no shiny apples for instance and eggs in cardboard cartons. Delicious milk comes in glass bottles (returnable) from three different dairies, two in northern California. Even the cat food they sell is way above average judging from way my cats clean their plates. The price is a bit higher than a regular grocery store, but what we put into our bodies goes a long way towards good health. I shall miss this store when I move.

          The other day there was a guy outside the store taking signatures for a petition to eliminate traffic in Santa Monica. And how you plan to eliminate traffic, I asked. By voting, he said. Yep, maybe that would work for chemtrails too, vote them away.

  2. At 1:02:30 they talk about WHY!! I don’t agree with the host, but Dr. Tracy hits it closer. I think the reason for most of their actions is covering for their sins of the past. Yes they are prolonging it. They are living paycheck to paycheck, getting by tragedy by tragedy, but their world is closing in around them. They still have control, but they know thins are shifting. Sandy Hook and the other recent events are part of their plans to fast-forward their strategies. The internet has been a huge monkey wrench in their gears and they feel things slipping.

  3. I listened until Barrett said the Rothchilds had trillions of dollars to effect the new world order but then added that he didn’t know if it was true or not. Whatever, he landed his sucker punch. What a poor spokesperson for the truth. Tracy has the good sense to not dignify Barrett’s unsubtle code language but does appear time after time on his show. Tracy’s message is too important to let Barrett taint it. I’d bail if I were Tracy and let Barrett go to the devil.

    1. I agree. “Taint” is the word, and I tend to think this splitting is the intention because it turns people off from asking enough good questions.

    2. In my understanding one important reason for having jewish middlemen in banking is that they can be relied upon to keep secrets since they are hated. If they would explain for whom they are operating they would no longer be wanted in that role. That said the 19th century instances of the R family beieved they did control half the worlds wealth or said so to give that impression. The persistent claims about the Rs is they are not known to have failed spectacularly since then other than in isolated cases. So if their own words for it are taken seriously you can calculate the interest of their wealth since then based on some reasonable hypothesis resulting in many trillions today.
      I dont think the Rs ever owned the wealth they claimed to control in the 19th century. I think they represented others but I may he wrong.
      I think some million angloamericans mostly having british ancestors is the group to consider when we look for reasons behind imperialism and NWO tyranny. The ruthless racist Winston Churchill hinted at it saying something about priorities between the perceived needs of the hungry hords as opposed to the fine british stock.(In different words)
      I think those bluebloods living on interest, and amassing wealth, were a bit uncomfortable when Paris Hilton came under scrutiny. Not too much light in the direction of the bluebloods please.
      The rich jews are wellpayed scapegoats.
      The racial characteristics of choice with the british elites at the time when the plans for two world wars were being made, are gradually silently brought into realization. Many wellinformed critics warn that depopulation is around the corner. Meanwhile the rich people I mentioned(admittedly oversimplifying their characterization) must be assumed to multiply faster than the middle class, the latter having to do the budget before having another child. What is the doublingtime for these Barbies and Kens?(meaning the dolls). I dont refer to their waistlines obviously but their number. Including illegitimate children who might know about their origin and make plans in accordance with their background:having expectations for their branch to be wealthy.
      Mr Solomon goes too far in wanting to send Barret to the devil just for bringing up this subject. If Mr Solomon has any constructive suggestion about how to reformulate Mr Barrets casual remark then come forward and tell us dont just hush-hush this important debate.

      1. Peter, I have read Quigley’s The Anglo-American Establishment, although it was far over my head, and such an inside story that I really did not benefit from all the details of the families’ connections over time. I know you have read it, and absorbed it far more completely than I did.

        That said, I believe your thesis is true. I think Quigley proves that case. I have long acknowledged, wistfully, that that copy of Tragedy and Hope sitting on my shelf will probably remain unread, but from what I know about his life’s work, this is exactly what he documents.

        I, too, find glib references to “the Rothschilds” to be indicators of lazy thinking about a very nuanced, hidden world, a kind of signal that it’s easy to have that whole business figured out. But I agree with you when you quite properly say that there’s no point in just denouncing people who have fallen into that trap; the best thing is to show them that it is indeed more subtle, and hard to uncover, than it seems on the surface.

        1. Yeah Patrick there is a heck of alot of namedropping in ‘the angloamerican establishment’
          More than one can digest. But he documented it. Well done.
          There is one phrase in it that I think I should quote: Alfred Milner one of the top figures said “I am a socialist and a british imperialist.”
          When people are ignorant about the angloestablishments role backing the bolshevik revolution that puts it in a perspective. ‘Tragedy and Hope’ is entirely different. Quigley, for instance, says ‘going steady’ is a stupid invention from the fifties. Girls may get stuck with a looser for years. He recommends tea dances with discreet shaprons(not interfering) in the environment and girls having a much better chance to compare young men and eventually make a better choice. I suppose this was more common before the pill.
          Still perhaps worth thinking about. We’re stoneage people and back then an alfamale had a simpler life. Today such an alfamale might be among the loosers and todays, still, stoneage women pick the alfamale even when he is a looser.
          Quigley gives a positive impression of Robert Oppenheimer and explains how Os views about the military strategy for the US was much more defensible than that of those who got him out of the way. The latter wanted to build bomber planes and bet everything on all out attacks while O wanted the US to avail itself of a more varied set of weapons allowing for limited conflicts. His opponents were insane, pretty much like in Dr Strangelove.
          He also mentions that operation Bravo was not just a big hydrogen bomb but in addition it was a Cobalt60 wrapped hydrogen bomb meaning its effect was to create a maximum of dangerous radioactive fallout.
          About politics he mentions that his coworkers were present when Joseph Mccarty picked the subject for his political agenda, and he says it wasnt at all obvious that he would become a commiehunter. Seems it was a little bit of a random decision.
          Some passages in the book appear to be written to convince the censors that he held the ‘right’ imperialistic views. His condescending characterization of some countries and people are only a very brief passage and I just cant believe it is his genuine opinions.
          One odd detail is he characterizes the swedish Nobel brothers as german. Quigley is said to have promised not to embarrasse the Rockefellers in exchange for getting access to archival material and that may explain why he would misrepresent their nationality since the angloamerican oilcompanies used the bolshies to get rid of their russian swedish competitors. German bashing is apparently generally tolerated.

        2. Peter and Patrick, I think when studying these things there are various “camps” that have a basic starting philosophy about how the world works. Some become enraptured with the idea of “bloodlines”, others, “countries”. That is fine so long as we don’t lose sight of what we are discussing.

          For example, is there some “mystical” about the Rothschilds? I don’t think so. Of course, someone could make an argument for that and I’d listen. In an historic sense, it isn’t too difficult to see how this happened.

          What most miss is that it isn’t about “wealth”, its about “control”. If you can convince large groups of people that they must use a medium of exchange that is controlled by someone, or some class, you’re home free. When monarchies lost control of their “wealth” and had to borrow from bankers, who gained control?

          While there is a sort of “evil genius” to this, it isn’t hard to understand. When people, no mater where they are, allow someone or group to control the necessities of life they’re doomed.

          So, fast forward to today. What do we see? Do we see the IMF and World Bank “loaning” “money” to various entities and insisting on “austerity” in return? Do we see angry mobs in the streets?

          So, what’s the real question here? Will those mobs beg their “betters” to “allow” them to have some of their assets or will they take them? That takes us back to the article on ‘gun control”. Could there be a reason for all that interest in disarming people? Oh, I remember, it’s about “crime”.

  4. James,
    Do you have a list of those who fund Project Censored such as major donors or foundations? I didn’t find anything on their site.


    1. The organization has generally subsisted on a very small budget over the years, well less than $100k annually. This is paltry compared to the likes of FAIR and certainly Media Matters. I would contend that this is what helps to make it more honest and willing to address controversial topics, such as 9/11. It received one or more substantial contributions a few years ago, evident in the most recent Form 990. I defer to its leadership to address who the funding sources are. I don’t know.

      1. Thanks. Interesting about Media Matters, maybe it better explains Abby’s recent uninformed statements about Ukraine. Abby’s recent piece in January on geoengineering really showed her true colors as a “”Gate Keeper” in which they even pulled the segment from Youtube due to the nature of the comments they were getting and seems like some of them really touched a nerve.

        Just listening to this piece discussing the AGW lie. Check out the work of Ben Davidson exposing some of this and related issues:

  5. This is an incredible article on a paper written by a Professor of Philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology (NY) on how all climate change scientist deniers should be jailed.

    The comments reveal a lot of woken up folks. Folks up north are fed up with this harsh winter and no doubt are becoming more aware of the man made clouds that continue to block out the sun and any chance of a thaw.

Leave a Reply