By James F. Tracy

This article was originally published at Memory Hole and Global Research on August 3, 2012. It is reposted here for further consideration in light of Nolan Higdon’s article, “Disinfo Wars: Alex Jones’ War on Your Mind,” published by Project Censored’s in September 2013, and the exchange concerning that work taking place here earlier this month.

The following should not be seen as a blanket condemnation of progressive media outlets, which often produce important work. Rather, the observations suggest how, particularly when faced with the challenge of forthrightly addressing “deep events” and the equivalent, such media are arguably subject to similar institutional pressures and self-censorship more overtly exhibited by their corporate-owned counterparts.*

Why do the self-proclaimed left-progressive “independent” media repeatedly overlook, obfuscate or otherwise leave unexamined some of the most momentous geopolitical and environmental events—September 11th and related false flag terror events, the United Nations’ “Agenda 21,” the genuinely grave environmental threats posed by the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe, geoengineering (weather modification), and the dire health effects of genetically modified organisms?[1] In fact, these phenomena together point to a verifiable transnational political economic framework against which one or more mass social movements could readily emerge.

Yet over the past decade the actual function of such journalistic outlets has increasingly been to “manufacture dissent”–in other words, to act as the controlled opposition to the financial oligarchs and an encroaching scientific dictatorship that to an already significant degree controls the planet and oversees human thought and activity. Indeed, many alternative media outlets that appear to be independent of the power structure are funded by the very forces they are reporting on through their heavy reliance on the largesse of major philanthropic foundations.

With the across-the-board deregulation of the transnational financial system in the late 1990s and consequent enrichment of Wall Street and London-based investment banks and hedge funds, the resources of such foundations have increased tremendously. Consequently, the overall funding of “activist” organizations and “alternative” media has climbed sharply, making possible the broadly disseminated appearance of strident voices speaking truth to power. In fact, the protesters and journalists alike are often tethered to the purse strings of the powerful. As a result,

Dissent has been compartmentalized. Separate “issue oriented” protest movements (e.g. environment, anti-globalization, peace, women’s rights, climate change) are encouraged and generally funded as opposed to a cohesive mass movement.[2]

The efforts of financial elites to influence left-progressive political opinion goes back a century or more. In the early 1900s, for example, the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations decisively shaped the trajectory of elementary and higher education. Yet a less-examined development is how such influence extended to the mass media. A specific instance of such interests seeking to influence the Left community specifically is the establishment of The New Republic magazine at a decisive time in US history.

Purchased Political Opinion: The Founding of The New Republic

Throughout the twentieth century powerful financial interests have sought to anticipate and direct American left wing social movements and political activity by penetrating their opinion-shaping apparatus. This was seldom difficult because progressives were usually strapped for funds while at the same time eager for a mouthpiece to reach the masses. In 1914 Wall Street’s most powerful banking house, J.P. Morgan, was willing to provide both. “The purpose was not to destroy, dominate, or take over but was really threefold,” historian Carroll Quigley explains.

(1) to keep informed about the thinking of Left-wing or liberal groups; (2) to provide them with a mouthpiece so that they could “blow off steam,” and (3) to have a final veto on their publicity and possibly on their actions, if they ever went “radical.” There was nothing really new about this decision, since other financiers had talked about it and even attempted it earlier. What made it decisively important this time was the combination of its adoption by the dominant Wall Street financier, at a time when tax policy was driving all financiers to seek tax-exempt refuges for their fortunes, and at a time when the ultimate in Left-wing radicalism was about to appear under the banner of the Third International.[3]

As an example, in 1914 Morgan partner and East Asia agent Willard Straight established The New Republic with money from himself and his wife, Dorothy Payne Whitney of the Payne Whitney fortune. “’Use your wealth to put ideas into circulation,’ Straight had told his wife. ‘Others will give to churches and hospitals.’”[4]

The idea of funding such an organ partly developed between the wealthy couple after they read Herbert Croly’s The Promise of American Life, in which the well-known liberal author assailed the foundations of traditional Progressivism, with its Jeffersonian doctrine of free enterprise and inclination for decentralized, unrestrictive government. In such a laissez-faire arrangement, Croly reasoned, the strong would always take advantage of the weak. “Only a strong central government could control and equitably distribute the benefits of industrial capitalism. … guided by a strong and farsighted leader.” Toward this end Croly proposed a “constructive” or “New Nationalism”, and a medium to reach a captive audience could promote such ideals on a regular basis.[5]

As Croly recalls, Straight

hunted me up and asked me to make a report for him on the kind of social education which would be most fruitful in a democracy. Thereafter I saw him frequently, and in one of our conversations we discussed a plan for a new weekly which would apply to American life, as it developed, the political and social ideas which I had sketched in the book … We hoped to make it the mouthpiece of those Americans to whom disinterested thinking and its result in convictions were important agents of the adjustment between human beings and the society in which they live.[6]

Straight designated Croly editor-in-chief of The New Republic‘s and the young socialist writer Walter Lippmann, who by his mid-twenties was an adviser to presidents and a member of the shadowy Round Table Groups, was approached to be a founding editorial board member and subsequently entrusted with gearing the American readership toward a more favorable view of Britain.

Croly later noted how Straight was hardly liberal or progressive in his views. Rather, he was a regular international banker and saw the magazine’s purpose

simply [as] a medium for advancing certain designs of such international bankers, notably to blunt the isolationism and anti-British sentiments so prevalent among many American progressives, while providing them with a vehicle for expression of their progressive views in literature, art, music, social reform, and even domestic polices.[7]

Following establishment of The New Republic, Straight considered purchasing The New York Evening Post or The Washington Herald. “He longed for a daily newspaper,” Croly recalls, “which would communicate public information in the guise of news as well as in the guise of opinion and which would be read by hundreds of thousands of people instead of only tens of thousands, to serve as his personal medium of expression.”[8]

Straight and Payne Whitney’s son, “Mike” Straight, carried on The New Republic through the 1940s in close alignment with Left and labor organizations, even providing Henry Wallace with a position on the editorial staff in 1946 and backing Wallace’s 1948 presidential bid.

With Willard Straight’s early death in 1918 another Morgan partner, Tom Lamont, apparently became the bank’s representative to the Left, supporting The Saturday Review of Literature in the 1920s and 1930s, and owning the New York Post from 1918 to 1924. Lamont, his wife Flora, and son Corliss were major patrons to a variety of Left concerns, including the American Communist Party and Trade Union Services Incorporated, which in the late 1940s published fifteen union organs for CIO unions. Frederick Vanderbilt Field, another well-heeled Wall Street banker, sat on the editorial boards of The New Masses and the Daily Worker—New York’s official Communist newspapers.[9]

Progressive-Left Media’s Financing Today

Since the 1990s the framework for guiding the Left has developed into a vast combine of powerful, well-funded philanthropic foundations that function on the behalf of their wealthy owners as a well-oiled mechanism of opinion management. Such philanthropic entities oversee formidable wealth that today’s heirs to the Straight and Payne Whitney tradition seek to shield from taxation while. At the same time they are able to employ such resources to influence political thought, discourse, and action. Further, following the broad-based 1999 protests of the World Trade Organization in Seattle, global elite interests recognized the importance of developing the means to “manufacture dissent.”

Such foundations no doubt exert at least subtle influence over the editorial decisions of the vulnerable progressive media beholden to them for financing. This is partially due to the personnel of the foundations themselves. The task of doling out money frequently falls to foundation officials who are retired political advocates with certain notions about what organizations should be funded and, moreover, how the money should be spent. As Michael Shuman, former director of the Institute for Policy Studies observed in the late 1990s,

A number of program officers at progressive foundations are former activists who decided to move from the demand to the supply side to enjoy better salaries, benefits and working hours. Yet they still want to live like activists vicariously… by exercising influence over grantees through innumerable meetings, reports, conferences and “suggestions” . . . Many progressive funders treat their grantees like disobedient children who need to be constantly watched and disciplined.[10]

Doling out grant money to a journalistic outlet is especially controversial since genuine journalism is inherently political given its inclination toward pursuing and examining the decisions and policies of power elites. As Ron Curran of the Independent Media Institute notes, money from foundations “has engendered a climate of secrecy at IAJ (Institute for Alternative Journalism n/k/a Independent Media Institute [IMI]) that’s in direct conflict with IAJ’s role as a progressive media organization.” He continues, “the only money nonprofits can get these days is from private foundations–and those foundations want to control the political agenda.”[11]

If funding is any indication of sheer influence over progressive media, that influence has grown by leaps and bounds at the foremost left media outlets since the 1990s. For example, between 1990 and 1995 the four major progressive print news outlets, The Nation, The Progressive, In These Times, and Mother Jones received a combined $537,500 in grants and contributions.

In 2010, however, The Nation Institute (The Nation) alone received $2,267,184 in funding, The Progressive took in $1,310,889, the Institute for Public Affairs (In These Times) accepted $961,015, and the Foundation for National Progress (Mother Jones) collected $4,725,235.[12]

These figures are for grants and contributions alone and do not include revenue generated from subscription sales and other promotions. Alongside the overall compromised nature such funding can bring, the tremendous increase over the past decade suggests one reason for why specific subject matter that is off-limits for coverage or discussion.

With the development of the internet several new alternative-progressive outlets have emerged between the late 1990s and early 2000s, including Alternet, Democracy Now!, and satellite channel Link TV. Recognizing their influence, a vast array of “public support” has likewise made these multi-million dollar operations alongside their print-based forebears.

For example, between 2003 and 2010 Democracy Now! has taken in $25,577,243—an annual average of $3,197,155, with 2010 assets after liabilities of $11,760,006. Between 2006 and 2010 the Pacific News Service received $26,867,417, or $5,373,483 annually.  The Foundation for National Progress (Mother Jones) brought in $46,623,197, or $4,662,320, and Link TV raised $54,839,710 between 2001 and 2009 for average annual funding of $6,093,301.(Figure 1)

Media Organization
501(c) 3 Total Support 2001-2010 Average Annual Support 2001-2010
Net Assets After Liabilities (2010)
Democracy Now
Productions Inc.
Yes $25,577,243 (from 2003) $3,197,155 $11,760,006
Schumann Center for Media and Democracy
Yes NA $3,471,682 (2010) $33,314,688
Nation Institute (The Nation) Yes $22,246,533 $2,224,653 $4,798,831
Pacific News Service Yes $26,867,417 (2006-2010) $5,373,483 $712,011
Foundation for National Progress (Mother Jones) Yes $46,623,19


The Progressive Yes $8,702,146 $870,215 $5,493,782
Link TV Yes $54,839,710 (excludes 2010) $6,093,301 $1,533,308
Institute for Public Affairs (In These Times) Yes $4,469,119 (excludes 2006, 2007) $558,640 -$114,532
Institute for Independent Media (Alternet) Yes $14,441,678 $1,444,168 $900,585

Figure 1. Grants, Gifts, Contributions, and Membership Fees of Select “Independent Progressive” Media or Media-Related Organizations 2001-2010 (unless otherwise noted). Based on 2001-2010 IRS Form 990s.

Bill Moyers’ Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, which funds The Nation Institute and online news organ Truthout, has net assets of $33,314,688, and brought in $3,471,682 in 2010 income.[13] Because these organizations assert under their 501c3 status that they have no overt political agenda, all income is untaxed.[14] Nor are they required to list the sources of their funding—even especially generous contributions. As the early 1990s grant figures for The Nation, The Progressive, In These Times, and Mother Jones suggest, nickel-and-dime contributions constitute a small percentage of such outlets’ overall “public” support.

Funding and Self-Censorship / Conclusion

Given the extent of foundation funding for left-progressive media, it is not surprising how such venues police themselves and proceed with the wishes of their wealthy benefactors in mind. As Croly observed concerning The New Republic, the Straights and Payne Whitneys “could always withdraw their financial support, if they ceased to approve of the policy of the paper; and in that event it would go out of existence as a consequence of their disapproval.”[15] Indeed, this is the left news media’s greatest fear.

In light of these dynamics and the big money at stake the progressive media’s censorial practices are understandable. At the same time self-censorship involves a fairly implicit set of social and behavioral processes. As Warren Breed discovered several decades ago, journalists’ socialization and workplace routinization constitute a process whereby newsworkers themselves internalize the mindset and wishes of their publishers, thereby making overt censorship unnecessary.[16] We may conclude that a similar process is in play when today’s “progressive” journalists and their editors share or accept many of the same interests, sentiments and expectations of those who hold the purse strings–and who would likely disapprove of attending to certain “controversial” or “conspiratorial” topics and issues.

With this in mind the foremost concern with such media is the uniform declaration of their “alternative” and “independent” missions–claims that are as problematic and misleading as Fox News’ “fair and balanced” mantle. A more appropriate (and honest) moniker for the foundation-funded press is a caveat emptor-style proclamation: “The following content is intended to impart the illusion of empowerment and dissent, yet can leave you uninformed of the most pressing issues of our time, in accordance with the wishes of our sponsors.”


*An important and unusual contribution toward understanding this largely-overlooked phenomenon was recently published by Project Censored. See John Pilger, “Censorship That Dares Not Speak Its Name: The Strange Silencing of Liberal America,” in Mickey Huff and Andy Lee Roth with Project Censored (editors), Censored 2014: The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2012-2013, New York: Seven Stories Press, 2013, 287-296.

[1] On false flag terror see, for example, Daniele Ganser, NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, New York: Routledge, 2005. On Fukushima see Fukushima: A Nuclear War without a War: The Ongoing Crisis of World Nuclear Radiation, ed. Michel Chossudovsky, Ottawa: Centre for Research on Globalization, January 25, 2012, For ongoing reportage see On Agenda 21 see Rachel Koire, Behind the Green Mask: UN Agenda 21, The Post-Sustainability Press, 2011. On geoengineering and weather modification see Project Censored 2012 Story #9, “Government Sponsored Technologies for Weather Modification,” Censored 2012: The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2010-2011, New York: Seven Stories Press, 2011, 84-90, On genetically modified organisms see Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods, White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green, 2007, and F. William Engdahl, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, Ottawa: Centre for Research on Globalization, 2007.

[2] Michel Chossudovsky, “Manufacturing Dissent: The Antiglobalization Movement is Funded by the Corporate Elites,”, September 20, 2011.

[3] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World In Our Time, New York: MacMillan, 1966, 938.

[4] Ronald Steele, Walter Lippmann and the American Century, Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown and Company, 1980, 60. Payne Whitney would continue to fund the publication until 1953.

[5] Steele, Walter Lippmann and the American Century, 59.

[6] Herbert Croly, Willard Straight, New York: Macmillan & Company, 1924, 472.

[7] Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 940.

[8] Croly, Willard Straight, 474.

[9] Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 945-946.

[10] Michael Shuman, “Why do Progressive Foundations Give too Little to too Many?” The Nation, January 12, 1998, 11-16, The Nation ( January 12): 11–16. Available at

[11] Ron Curran 1997. “Buying the News.” San Francisco Bay Guardian, October 8, 1997. Cited in Bob Feldman, “Reports from the Field: Left Media and Left Think Tanks—Foundation Managed Protest,” Critical Sociology 33 (2007), 427-446. Available at wp-content/ uploads/ 2011/ 08/Reading-Foundations-Feldman.pdf

[12] Feldman, “Reports from the Field.”

[13] All tax-related information obtained through GuideStar,, and Foundation Center,

[14] Progressive-left finger pointers such as Center for American Progress and Media Matters for America are similarly awash in foundation funding and require separate treatment.

[15] Croly, Willard Straight, 474.

[16] Warren Breed, “Social Control in the Newsroom: A Functional Analysis,” Social Forces, 33:4 (May 1955), 326-335. Available at

Leave a Reply

99 thought on “The Financial Bearings of Manufactured Dissent”
  1. James,

    Once again, thanks for a great article. There is a untaught history to everything. Ah yes, the old ‘follow the money’ holds for so many things.

    One thing I have learned in life (and this includes reading media) – if they say it is important – it isn’t; if they say it isn’t important, it is.


  2. Well said, Lois and James, what can I say about your dedication to truth and justice? (Wowzie!)

    I monitor both left and right chatter and find similarities in the rhetorical devices; some seem in opposition but from a more cosmic perspective, one can hardly miss the slant toward change, as in New World Order.

    Case in point…following the Glenn Greenwald/Snowden/Wikileaks saga, (hardly shocking) it just seems too pat as reality is never that tidy.
    And Greenwald is defecting to greener pastures. And Jeremy Scahill may follow. They made their bones now they will garner their perks How will Amy Goodman spin these progressive truth-seekers running off
    into the fold of a consumate capitalist? Another tycoon just snapped up the Washington Post. Think we are in trouble. Being anti-everything is profitable.

    1. Hi Marilyn –

      I shared some concerns about Glenn Greenwald’s leaving – and still feel a bit uneasy about it, but if you go to his latest column and go down to comments – you can click on staff comments and read what he wrote back to on commenter. He said that any place he goes, he insists on editorial independence. He also has a ‘defense’ of Pierre Omidyar.

      I do believe Jeremy Scahill will indeed be involved, as well as Laura Poitras. His last column will be on Halloween and he will have more to say then.

      I confess to me, it felt like very strange timing. And of course we don’t know all the details of how this decision was arrived at, so we guess and speculate.

      The acid test will be how the new venture does what it does. Will it truly be honest, independent journalism. We can only wait and see.

  3. Money talks, and the powers that be make sure just enough money flows to the left to keep it co-opted and controlled. The fact that money equals power means capitalism cannot possibly be reconciled with democracy.

    Alex Jones plays a unique and ingenious role within the controlled media structure. By tying 9/11 truth to the ridiculous libertarian political agenda, and blaming the crimes of the right-wing elite on the hapless left, this millionaire gives powerful aid to the forces of tyranny which he pretends to oppose.

    1. Yawn, Alex psyop. You sound like a psyop. If Alex Jones is a psyop, then who do you trust? Or are you a government controlled bot with a .mil ISP that’s trying to discredit a modern day Paul Revere? You call libertarians ridiculous, yet you claim to be an enemy of tyranny? Sounds like a divide and conquer infiltration COINTELPRO psy-op to us.

  4. A brilliant article, sharp, central, and short. It is the major reason why the Left does not detail the homicidal conspiracies conducted by American power. Left truthers, largely indirectly, are in the pay of the plutocracy, creating a left consensus that does not de-legitimate American power.

    Leftish truthers like Noam Chomsky and Alex Cockburn (now deceased) have attacked Conspiracy Theorists who are treated as crazed paranoids for detailing the lawless gangster crimes of American power. So the critique of these homicidal conspiracies have largely come from the right. Both Chomsky and Cockburn accept that Oswald was the Lonely Assassin of Kennedy, and Chomsky just gave a speech at the U of Florida arguing that the Bush regime could not possibly be involved in 9/11.

    They have a constituency because the leftish truth consensus has been largely financed by the pluts, which I didn’t realize before could be documented. It is crucial to expose, because their misleading the left has distorted the entire American truth consensus. It is one reason why the diluted and muted Marxism of the 20th century is seguing to a new form of people’s ideology in the 21st.

    The Free Enterprise which was a progressive force in the 19th century and degenerated into a form of gangsterism in the 21st. The Free Press is the servile captive of a few corporations owned and managed and financed by the pluts. It is necessary to free the political and cultural truth consensus from the captive and authorized Left and Liberal forces, in order to unite people against the monstrous inequality that is impoverishing us, and the gangster state that is being created to maintain and increase it.

    1. They aren’t merely against the truth. Recall Bill Maher’s reaction to an audience member who brought up Building 7 on one of his “live” telecasts (assuming this wasn’t staged). Left intellects are similarly angered. Chomsky doesn’t simply state he does not accept the facts of 9/11; he is scathing and mocking of those who do. He has what might be called a hatred for anyone who grasps what a controlled demolition looks like, or realizes the typical trajectory of a bullet. Drawing from an endless list of aspersions, he gives those of us who are dependent on reality several names in addition to “conspiracy theorists”: internet-geek-pseudo-scientists, charlatans, insanely irrational dim wits, and so on. His attacks aren’t just dismissive, but savage and careless. This I can’t explain by his funding. Maybe the left needs to believe the empire is penetrable by what they believe to be Che Guevara type rebels (CIA trained and funded patsies, that is), just as much as the right needs to believe the “Founding Fathers” had meant everyone when they notarized “We the People.”

      1. That “We the People” talk is a glaring clue that the Constitutional Convention was a coup d’etat. Patrick Henry, who refused to join that cabal (he said “I smell a rat”), was out raged by that formulation. Who did those guys think they were, he railed, to talk about “the people”? The central government was the creation of the STATES, and only the STATES can change or replace it. He was an antifederalist for the rest of his life.

  5. Excellent article and information. How do we begin to take next steps is a more cohesive movement that acts as as a formidable threat to the high corruption and the structures that keep it empowered? This seems like the question of the hour in which we’re in.

    1. In addition to Mark’s contribution –

      It seems to me as though all the various movements – Women, Peace, Civil Rights, Occupy, Workers’ rights, etc. need to start talking to each other, listening to each other and coordinating some actions together. This was happening in fits and starts, but needs to really rev up.

      And I’ve been wanting to mention this since I heard it… This was on Bill Moyers (the show about Progressives Picking Up the Pieces) – the one guest talked about Dr. Suess and the fact that the lessons of his books were often Progressive themes. He specifically mentioned “Yertle the Turtle” (which I unfortunately have not read). Seems as though turtle Max at the bottom of the turtle heap keeping up Yertle kept saying it was bad down there. Finally he ended up bringing the entire heap down and the turtles saw that Yertle was no better than they were. The guest mentioned this was a great lesson for us now – that ‘we, the common people’, can use our power. Well, I thought it was a nice analogy…

    1. Many think self-censorship can come in the form of political correctness.
      We dare not mutter opinions if they step on tender toes–which seems be just about every minority on the horizon. That can extend to rational discussion on false-flag events. Mum’s the word.

      So certain protected groups and government deceivers are getting away with murder–figuratively and literally. We are being backed to the wall while our social values and treasury are being purloined in broad
      daylight. Enough already!

      PC does tend to muzzle anyone with an inquiring mind. I can go only so far in either direction (right or left) before my common sense kicks in. Then I must rethink a given situation. That is called flexibility. Rigid
      mindsets offer no solutions to complex problems.

      1. Flexibility – I like that. We (me included) can be rigid in thinking – I think it comes basically from fear. We are scared to admit we may have been wrong about something, and maybe wonder what else we may have to rethink.

        PC or not PC? Some people may think I’m too PC, but for me it comes out of a realization that some words, symbols, really are offensive or hurtful.

        I think this Truth part is a sort of different matter. I think we’ve mentioned this before – people are afraid to be stigmatized – and/or afraid to face even what unanswered questions there are. And there are also a lot of folks that are just apathetic or too busy earning a living.

        Oh, I’m glad you use something called “common sense” – it really isn’t all that common.

      2. Mollie, I think we all know what is verbotten in a given milieu. You don’t paint the NAZI swastika on a Jewish temple or show a cartoon of a black child eating watermellon or raise the Confederate Stars and Bars over a southern state capitol building (though it has been done recently). Everyone of age in the US knows these symbols have a negative impact meant to demean and marginalize the targeted group.

        I am speaking of a healthy debate on human flaws that exist in all cultures, all individuals. Honor killings by Muslims in America is a crime by our laws; it is considered part of the culture under strict Islam and to address the issue is considered racist. Nonsense! Also, I feel I should be able to debate some points regard the present administration’s
        flawed leaderdhip without being labeled racist. I certainly criticized former presidents. No one is above the law.

        The PC agenda, IMO, allows too many offenders to go about business as usual. And it can drift over into other areas, such as fear of offending anyone who refuses to own up to false flags or other symptoms of societal collapse. Professor Tracy’s whole forum is dedicated to exposing this Orwellian bastardization of language and logic. Intimidation is part of the unholy regimen.

        Nice to hear from you, Mollie…

        1. I think we’re more on the same page than you thought! When I think of PC – I think of things you mentioned as symbol that are by common sense verboten. Not in excusing criminal behavior.

          I know it gets tricky. Such debates as you mention are just fine; I think what we need to do is keep the focus on the BEHAVIOR, not race or religion.

          Good to read your thoughts.

  6. The next step, Kyle, is to move the political-cultural truth consensus from a national context to a world context. The world context is now dominated by the neoliberalism and globalization of the national plutocracies, but a world truth consensus can be developed historically from a perspective of the earth’s people.

    This is being initiated with the Snowden-Assange-Greenwald truthers who are beginning to act on the world stage, from many countries. As new media from new sources become legitimated, a dialectical opposition to it will create a new thin truth consensus which conflicts with national truth. Hopefully this will include China which is becoming more transparent and accountable as the US power truth consensus becomes less so. Over historical time this will transform the political culture of the person, seven billions of us.

  7. “Why do the self-proclaimed left-progressive “independent” media repeatedly overlook, obfuscate or otherwise leave unexamined some of the most momentous geopolitical and environmental events—September 11th and related false flag terror events, the United Nations’ “Agenda 21,” the genuinely grave environmental threats posed by the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe, geoengineering (weather modification), and the dire health effects of genetically modified organisms?”

    So the article begins. Undefined is what is leftism today? It has always been an expression of the impulse to aggrandize the state, to cede individuals’ power over their lives to ever larger, more all-encompassing institutions. It has succeeded in mind-boggling fashion. I can’t actually see what more the left has to accomplish (well, Obamacare, the final brick in that wall, appears to be a false start; I predict that the left will go back to that drawing board and finally foist fully communized medicine upon us, and then we’ll have no individual autonomy remaining).

    I can’t see that there’s much of a conservative impulse remaining–outside of libertarianism, which is a dream of freedom from government coercion in a world what the noose is ever tightening. The world today seems very pleased to have the state exercise power over every aspect of every person’s life, from cradle to grave. No one wants to reverse it, seemingly (again, excepting libertarians, who are alarmingly optimistic in the face of such overwhelming circumstances).

    My point is, to address the first item in James’ list, the false flag events all serve to strengthen the state; why would the left truly object to them? Exposing them will weaken the state, which is just the opposite of what the left wants.

    The left wants world government, which is what Agenda 21 is all about. Why would this alarm them? The left loves the United Nations, and actually composed a “Declaration of Interdependence” setting out the goals of glorious supranational future.

    I’ll grant that Fukushima fits the premise of the article: the left has always opposed nuclear energy and promoted environmentalism. But then, the so-called right from Theodore Roosevelt to Nixon (he gave us the monstrosity called the EPA) have always promoted environmentalism as well. No one wants the oceans to die. Still, the right has defended nuclear power and the corporate mentality that allowed that horrendous foolishness all along the way. One would think that the left would be all over that one like white on rice, as they say. See, I told you so!!! Neener neener neener! Perhaps the catastrophe is so imponderably huge, and the damage already done so vast and seemingly irreversible, the left are paralyzed. Certainly, it does not serve the cause of world government, or the further empowerment of the state.

    Geoengineering is another item that strikes me as serving the goals of the left; it’s clearly global, and coordinated. I believe its being done by what I call the secret government, which is the coordination entity that is fashioning the New World Order the left has longed for for centuries now (we can trace it back to Napoleon Bonaparte). More than once, in these pages, I have offered a test to determine who comprises the secret government: what level of access do they have to which levels of the Deep Underground Military Bases? Certainly, the number of politicians in that set is vanishingly small, which is why accusing the visible government of producing 911 is so laughable. Ike, a dying whistleblower recently revealed, had to threaten invasion by the US army to find out what was going on at Area 51–and that was half a century ago. Anyway, the crafting of a new climate–or whatever the goal of the sky-painting program is–seems to be part of the post-national dream the left has always advocated.

    Finally, the “dire health effects of genetically modified organisms.” While on the surface, this does seem anomalous, scratch the surface and you’ll find it a tougher problem to solve. The left has always worshiped at the feet of technocracy. Ever since the Progressive Era a century ago, they have had an innate trust that we have to self-generate the next stage of evolution. Woodrow Wilson typified that worldview, and wrote about it extensively. The Big Brains were to be charged with making “the world safe for democracy,” inventing new rights that the state would deliver, and all-around fix what ails the world. The lever never sees Frankenstein’s monster resulting from all Dr. Frankenstein’s brilliant experiments. That’s what the right is supposedly for, but they, as I say, don’t exist anymore, and the Libertarians are less than worthless on issues like this. That is to say, the whole establishment political spectrum seems incapable of recognizing Monsanto for what it is. I contend it’s because of that innate faith in technocracy, and the belief that man can craft a glorious future for himself; objecting to Monsanto’s collection of Frankenstein’s monsters might draw that glorious dream into question.

    1. There’s some inherent pith to the point that the left is not going to criticize false flag terror in an effective way because they desire an outcome of world government. Their solution to war crimes does not involve arrest and prosecution so much as it involves empowering the UN.This persuasion makes it difficult to let them in on “geoengineering” (I use scare quotes because I’ve recently considered a problematic implication of this term). Many of them could easily be calmed if told it’s an international program to reduce carbon emissions and save things from carbon. Furthermore, they’d be told it’s the latest of science. Some of what I see of harmonizes with this deception, hence the warning placed on the term “geoengineering.”

        1. Left leadership always solves problems by referring us to a world government, full of harmony; they would never guess that something like multi-culturalism is a ploy to dissolve all cultural independence. I would venture to say just about everyone who identifies with the left thinks the UN is a good thing, in principle. Many think it is corrupt and controlled by Washington (which is a Chomsky type joke) but still clap and cheer when they hear the UN is in Syria to “vaccinate for polio,” or that the UN stands with the world’s “indigenous” (now what do they mean by indigenous: native?; “primitive” and lacking “civilization”?; Indian?; a blue dye? what? what do they mean to suggest when they use the possessive?) peoples.

          It is true that because the UN exists it can be used as a tool. It’s a private organization, set up by the same old people that always set this stuff up after/before making it the logical conclusion, but as a tool you may have to play with it while in a crisis, all the while inventing a better tool and questioning the usefulness of the tool. Personally, I think this is all that can be done with the right or left. One should not go in with either but can use both as tools. This is what the globalists do to reach evil ends. Play them back.

          Of course, another issue comes up. Ever argued with a psychopath (someone who has absolutely no interest in truth or in seeing your side)? You’ll find that you can only score points on him if you enter the abstract, criminally disconnected realm that hosts him. Truth doesn’t count; only the end. The psychopath, always hidden behind charity, will ask you to donate to the pink ribbon campaign. You can’t be honest and say that campaign is a crock and that its organizers help put carcinogenic foods on the market (in the first place). The psychopath will tell you you hate women and want them to get cancer. From the get-go, you would have to say I know of a better way to fight cancer and anyone who doesn’t support it must not like women. You can fight evil by making everything a play-thing, by being evil. But only evil people feel good walking around all day doing harm to others; they have the eternal advantage because when you’re just trying to buy flour or cross the street, they’re looking to use you for something. They’re always on. Decent people are off guard unless they sense something wrong, and act on it.

          I’ve said all this in order to say it’s ineffective tactic to adopt a doctrine or political position or specific set of principles. But I do realize you are without principle when all you care for is an end.

        2. Ohhh, lordy is the UN a tool for use by some not so well-meaning people. I think their most egregious scam of recent is the Office of International Treasury Control. Check their wiki here, which does reveal a lot. Of course, they simply declare it all a hoax and the UN denies any association…

          Basically, the large banking institutions or maybe their superiors wanted their hands on a couple massive fortunes. These massive wealth stockpiles had been amassed through accumulation and through global treaties for the purpose of feeding the world and raising all 3rd world nations out of dire straights. This is related to the “Yamashita gold” and “Trillion dollar bond” stories you might have heard about.

          Being a very creative sort, the UN chartered a body (the OITC) to act as a kind of settlement house whereby these large funds could be cashed out. The whole thing hinges on this one guy acting as executor who claims to be, get this…”the sole arbiter of the centralized wealth of the world.” His name is Ray Dam.

          When the OITC’s website first popped up, it was hosted in the same manner as other loving tentacles of the UN (agendy 21ish), but has since moved servers.

          So, the UN is a player in this game because of how funds are to be redeemed. The UN is supposedly “legally bound” to respond to a verification request but only as long as the requisite protocols and procedures are followed, otherwise “no response will be received from the United Nations.”

          I mean, come on? You know you can trust the United Nations here people. Do you have your Player’s Club card? Fuggetaboutit!

    2. Whoa, there, Patrick.

      Coming from the left, I can’t agree here. The left wants to cede individual control to the state? Now of course I can’t speak for all Liberals – only myself. No, I wouldn’t want to cede all control to the state. But I do agree that government has a role to play in regulating corporations, in protecting our most vulnerable citizens. I’ve long thought that the difference between Liberals and Conservatives is Liberals emphasize “collective” responsibility; Conservatives, “individual” responsibility. I think, as I said elsewhere on this blog, we need both. I’m not much of a Libertarian, but do feel their voice should be part of the national conversation.

      As far as GMO foods, I am VERY concerned about them. Personally, I probably eat way too many of them, and this does give me pause. Sadly, I don’t think many folks, left, right, or center are very informed or concerned about this issue.

      About climate change – I’ve heard so many conflicting things, but isn’t it clear something is being done to our Planet? We need some real, independent research and recommendations.

      You ask about what really is the definition of the left now? Well, that may be part of the problem. There doesn’t seem to be one real coalescing issue or strong leader. I think liberals are searching again for identity.

  8. I was interested in the information about Willard Straight. As you probably know, the student union at Cornell is “the Straight,” named for him–never really knew who he was!

    1. Yes, and Straight’s papers are there in digitized form for anyone who wishes to better understand his short life (he died at the age of 38 from pneumonia while preparing for the American mission to the Paris Peace Conference), and the extent of his interest in shaping The New Republic.

      Cornell has an interesting history. As you likely know, Cornell’s first president, Andrew Dickson White, is buried on campus. In addition to being ambassador to Germany and first president of the American Historical Association, he was also a close friend of fellow Skull and Bones member Daniel Coit Gilman, the first president of Johns Hopkins who played a role in introducing experimental psychology to the US.

      1. “Upon such a transformation in education, Wells envisioned the global population overseen by a well-trained and specialized scientific elite interwoven with virtually every human activity. “This little army, this scientific world of today,” Wells forecast, “numbering … not a couple of hundred thousand men, will certainly be represented in the new world order by a force of millions, better equipped, amply coordinated, free to question, able to demand opportunity.””

        How fortuitous that you link to that article of yours, as this quote from it is exactly what I was driving at in my concluding remarks in my last comment. What I find interesting, and if you could see your way to explicate it, is how an opposition to such a plan can be in any way held by a leftist. It is the essence of the left. Wells was a quintessential leftist, as was Wilson (whom I mentioned earlier), John Dewey, Horace Mann, and all the rest. Opposition to all of this is the purview of the right, although, as I say, outside of Ron Paul, there IS no proper “right” any longer, which is to say, no one in public life really opposes the system as the educational establishment the 20th century evolved. What Republican (I gag at evoking the name) even gives lip service any longer to eliminating the Department of Education, and making those louts find honest work?

        Just as fortuitous is that Lew Rockwell, this very day, published a fantastic article about Ron Paul’s education revolution (, which points to the very issue at hand.

        None of this is to diminish in any way, by the way, the excellence of the overall point you are making in this article. Few quote Quigley so knowledgeably. The powers behind the scenes HAVE co-oped all potential opposition. But this makes my question even more pertinent: what is leftism at this point? It can’t object to Wells, et. al., if it’s the same thin it used to be. And why does the left hate Orwell so? Because he was revealing the Plan of the left, and that’s just not done.

        Which is to say, a genuine leftist can’t object to the world Orwell painted, only that it was bad form to tell the rest of us about what the left had in store for us.

        1. Both right and left have degenerated into the same. Both push for NWO. Neither seems to have any real goals , except NWO. Wasn’t it Bush who signed the north American prosperity partnership, with no advice and consent? Didn’t it take both of them to pass the NDAA 2012. Weren’t the Nazis supposed to be the ultimate right wingers? Yet they called themselves national socialists. Wouldn’t that make them lefties? When politicians apparently take a stand for left or right, they always cave for some kind of deal, or favor that has nothing to do with the issue at hand(e.g. Mitch Mconnell and his $3billion payoff to settle the debt ceiling/shutdown) . Left and right always turn their spectrum into a circle and meet each other in the back where none of us can see.

  9. I would rather that the left not be so enamored with science. This misplaced allegiance stems from the creationism vs. Darwinism battle (in which neither side has a truly valid explanation for life as we know it).

    The reality about science is that it gets pressed into the service of the capitalist or fascist right. But leftists always gets sucker punched because they focus on the religious right and on social wedge issues — which the right-wing elite don’t really give a damn about.

    In the very same way, leftists get suckered into knee-jerk opposition to any and all conspiracy theories due to the Alex Jones effect. This emotional vulnerability is well known and well exploited by the right-wing elite, who are masters of psychological manipulation (as proven most remarkably in Nazi Germany).

    1. The problem with this kind of talk is that it assumes that there is a great deal of difference between communism and fascism. Which is an awfully silly way to think. Both “the left” and “the right” in this formulation agree on essentially everything of importance, i.e. that the state should be involved in every aspect of human life, from cradle to grave. Where do people like me stand on the political spectrum?

      People like me believe what Dr. Tracy implies throughout the article he linked to in his response to dinphile: the state should not control us, at all. Freedom. Liberty.

      Again, I’d like to know what leftists think like they are about, today, if they reject Orwell. If they object to Wells, then leftism is a completely different thing than it was when those grand old lefties were creating the model. If they object to it, doesn’t that make them rightists?

    2. Leftists (Marxists) believe in freedom. Freedom from capitalist tyranny, moneyed elitism, and all the concomitant evils such as imperialist wars, labor exploitation, environmental degradation, political manipulation including black ops, etc.

      But Marxism goes against base human characteristics like greed, materialism and selfishness. The forces of elitism are relentless even in defeat, knowing that sooner or later those base characteristics will allow them to reassert.

      So yes, under Marxism state power is utilized — but this is directed at keeping the door closed on the elite. Under capitalism/fascism, state power is used to empower the elite. The difference could not be greater.

      The libertarian fantasy of anarcho-capitalism is nothing but a red herring. State power will and must exist. The question is whether that power will be in the service of the elite, or the people.

      1. “State power will and must exist.”

        Would it surprise you to learn that the political ideology that I prefer is vastly more radical a departure from our so-called democracy than anarcho-capitalism? In fact, it doesn’t even fall within the libertarian spectrum. It speaks to me because, although it allows you to join as many committees as you desire it bothers to ask me, “do you wish to be governed by these committees?” To which I will reply, “No, but thank you.”

        It treats every human being in the same way that a video game treats a new player. “I’m sorry, but 10% of your inherent life-force has been reallocated to boost the life-forces of opponent game characters,” isn’t something you expect from your first game play. If the reduced life-force was for a limited time or the percentage varied from time to time, it would only be more unexpected.

        My preferred political ideology doesn’t recognize systems. The only authority it recognizes is that over ones self. It doesn’t pretend that it can be modified to reflect changing times. In fact, it’s designed to ignore history and any prediction of the future. Although it firmly calls upon its adherents to abide by only two laws, it posits no method of punishment for breaking them.

        I’m referring to Voluntaryism, and I strongly recommend learning more about it. Whether we’re centuries or decades from accepting the responsibility for ourselves that Voluntaryism requires has no bearing on its merits. Even if it seems a pipe-dream to some, I think that declaring what government is ideal is the most intellectually honest way to begin debate over government. Then, it will be obvious to ourselves and to others when anything we propose is a compromise between the “ideal” and something “directed at keeping the door closed on the elite.”

      2. State power will always exist of and for itself. No matter how benign the beginnings, Eventually, it will always enforce its directives down the barrel of a gun.

    3. Let me start by saying I have a masters in biology.

      Evolution does not claim nor try to attempt how life came to be, yet how life changes over very long swaths of time. It is one of the most widely accepted tenets in science. There is not a shred of evidence for creationism. All of the evidence which supports evolution dashes creationism against the rocks. Creationists love to try to debunk Darwin rather than validate their own beliefs.

      1. Steve, you seem like a smart guy, so imagine if you can, that you don’t know everything. In everything in nature there is fantastic and synergetic design, it truly is a miracle. If there is a design, then there is a Designer. Even you must have days of awe and wonder when you look at this earth and marvel at nature.

      2. Think about this for a moment. Scratch that. Finish this sentence. “The opposite of Evolution is….?”

        OK, that was a trick question and hopefully nobody here attempted to answer it. Evolution is a thing and Creationism is a thing. How they became intertwined is something we might all benefit from learning.

        Here’s a conundrum. I think Creationism is pretty much ridiculous. However, I think Evolution is not only ridiculous but also evil having itself evolved with intent to deceive.

        Now, how is it I can denounce Evolution without replacing it with Creationism? VERY easily. I considered an alternative.

  10. “So yes, under Marxism state power is utilized — but this is directed at keeping the door closed on the elite. Under capitalism/fascism, state power is used to empower the elite. The difference could not be greater.”

    You know, I’m so dumb. Forgive me.

    Under Lenin/Stalin, not to mention Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and all those lovely loves who have ruled North Korea, the door has always remained “closed on the elite.” It has been so wonderful for the common man in those workers’ paradises. I completely forgot. What a moron I am. Sorry to waste your valuable time with my asinine , ignorant, babbling.

  11. I don’t think you’re a moron, Patrick. Your asinine, ignorant babbling, as you characterize your comments, have a sophisticated political purpose. They support the plutocrats that have made the major economic and political decision in America historically, and are now driving the American people into the ground.

    Your libertarianism is also purveyed by the Koch brothers who fund the Tea Party to shut down the government, supported by your anti-government drivel. Excuse me, babbling. You support the freedom of the powerful to oppress the powerless, unconstrained by the government. You are for Freedom while denying the right of women to choose when and how they will bear children. Your Educated racism is companioned by your gutter racism.

    But you appear to genuinely enjoy ideas, if they are anti-people ideas. They include the religious lunacy of your beam-me-up theology, since duping the people economically requires diverting their concerns Heaven-ward. How anyone interested in ideas could ever evolve yours is a tribute to the childishness of American ideology.

      1. Who is this guy?

        First of all, I think some Liberals have used the term Progressive since Liberal became such a loaded word some time ago.

        First, I would not call someone a racist without some real evidence. Racists know in their hearts if they are such and God knows who they are.

        Second, I don’t excuse bad behavior by brown-skinned people, white skinned-people, red-skinned people, or purple-skinned people for that matter. Surely you must also realize that indeed some of the policies and practices of the U. S. (i.e., drone strikes which kill innocent civilians) have not made us friends – and probably made those on the other end hurt or even angry.

        I wish I knew what the answers are. But I will say this. We need to pray and work for peace. We need to pray and work for human beings to treat other human beings fairly. We need to pray and work to make sure we examine our own selves to ensure we follow a good path.

        1. “First, I would not call someone a racist without some real evidence. Racists know in their hearts if they are such and God knows who they are.”

          From your lips to Mark’s ears, Mollie.

        1. I just replied to you on the AR-15 page, Derrick.

          Please don’t mistake this fellow for me–although I’d like to be able to claim I was..

          Pat Condell ( is a guy whose site I check every day. He’s an atheist, and proudly so. He is an equal opportunity insulter of religion, but he’s usually capable of seeing truth in very powerful, insightful, ways. And he’s really funny.

          When I discovered him, some years back, I went into the archives and watched every one of his videos. Now, I never miss one.

          Our “Mark”, here, reduces everything to race, and when Pat came out with this video I thought of him, in spades. And I knew that one day soon he would make one of his ridiculous, unfounded accusations of racism, and I would reply with this video. I did not suspect that it would be assumed that it was me speaking. Dumb, I know. I though that the message would be more powerful with no introduction. True enough, but with that one unfortunate side effect. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

  12. Here is a factoid worth noting. Going back to historical milestones, Charlotte Iserbyt has written a telling book on the dumbing down of the American educational system. She thinks it was deliberate and was imported from Europe years ago, incorporated into American philosophy.

    Go to chapter 1 for deep background. All who believe those theories have been carried into today are on to something. Again the elitist agenda creeps into all facets of life from birth to death. You see little eruptions of recognition and say, ah ha! When it all comes together, you might say, Oh My G…why are we still quibbing over nonstarters?

  13. This ‘introduction of experimental psychology to American education’ piece is amazing in its thorough probing, closing the gap between Iserbyt’s analysis and Bill Gates’ involvement. Recall one of the Bush sons is also involved somehow with software for schooling, visiting the Middle East. Probably meeting with Kahn.

    Honestly, these megalomaniacs are so openly brazen, it’s almost laughable. Almost, not quite.

    1. If you noticed, that excellent piece only drew three comments, one a ping back. It is a testament to Dr. Tracy’s courage in speaking openly about false flag events, starting with Sandy Hook, that today this wonderful community of incisive thinkers exists here now, and the comments are almost too many to keep on top of.

  14. While we were attending elsewhere…

    I saw this at The Guardian site and came right over here… of course I had to do a few other replies first…

    British PM Cameron has issued a veiled threat against The Guardian. They had comments allowed, but a Moderator said comments on the article would soon be closed for – legal reasons. So I couldn’t get in a comment there.

    There is a gathering attack on Press Freedom. Please read the article at:

  15. On rereading James piece, it occurs to me that the process that he describes, of the plutocracy and their institutions effectively financing the authorized Left, would lead to a White truth consensus. The money of a White plutocracy, distributed by a White professional-managerial class, would be given to White leftist truthers. Since the Right in the USA has been traditionally racist, either openly or implicitly, the political consensus formed by them and their left Opposition, would tend to exclude non-White truthers and non-White truth.

    In his classic critique of high school history books, leading to an adult American population that is historically illiterate, James Kuhn illustrates it in LIES MY TEACHER TOLD ME. He states that in 1945, there was only one (1) African American history teacher in all of America’s White universities.

    The exclusion of racist oppression in the truth consensus was emphasized by Marxism, the major world social theory in the 20th century formulated from a people’s perspective. It emphasized class oppression to the relative exclusion of racial oppression, which generally was much worse. Racism was perhaps the major reason why socialism never developed in the USA, although this was usually ignored in classic accounts, such as that of Warner Sombart.

    The Progressive movement at end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century tried to integrate the races, but for some reason failed. Political leaders like Gompers, head of the unions of the time, and Tom Watson, became highly racist after their failure, for reasons I am not cognizant of. However the financing of dissident truth by the White plutocracy, that James points out, is a crucial part of the White ideological world-view that historically has legitimated the American power system.

  16. ” Racism was perhaps the major reason why socialism never developed in the USA”

    I don’t know about this weird racial silliness, but it really doesn’t matter. Your premise is wrong. America is an almost completely socialist country at this point. The left has successfully bent our system to incorporate all ten of the planks Marx laid down in his Communist Manifesto, his how-to guide to communize a country.

    We are on right path, comrade! Have good thoughts! Running dogs almost vanquished!

  17. Comrade! Good news! The running dog counterrevolutionary, Victor Davis Hanson (excuse reading trash such, comrade, but enemy thought obtain good sometimes) write this: ( inside which he link to this: ( where find these cheerful thinking!:

    Of course — having survived the eight years that proceeded from an event that many on the left viewed as traumatic an occurrence as 9/11 — when the election of 2000 was finalized and GWB became president-elect, they believed in January of 2009 that the revolution was at hand, and “We Are All Socialists Now.” Or as John Judis of the New Republic wrote at the time:

    A decade ago, I might have been embarrassed to admit that I was raised on Marx and Marxism, but I am convinced that the left is coming back. Friedrich Hayek is going to be out; Friedrich Engels in. Larry Kudlow out; Larry Mishel in. And why is that? Because a severe global recession like this puts in relief the transient, fragile, and corruptible nature of capitalism, and the looming contradiction between what Marx called the forces and relations of production evidenced in unemployed engineers and boarded up factories and growing poverty amidst a potential for abundance. As capitalism itself–or at the least the vaunted miracle of the free market–becomes problematic, the left is poised for an intellectual comeback.

    Revolution on track! Good think, comrade! Be optimism!

  18. What is going on with the debacle and the unaffordable health care act? Elderly must have a plan with contraception and maternity care? They knew millions of low or middle income people who bought their healthcare in the private sector would be cancelled and now cannot afford what the government has determined they need and blatantly lied about that? And now even the MSM is reporting on these falsehoods? It is just another tax that will destroy our healthcare system and force all those not in the elite cabal to be on the government system of rationing healthcare. Here Breitbart commenters relayed that the initial NBC article was purged of the 2500 mostly negative comments on the whole fiasco, which by the way, was not bid out, but awarded to cronies!

    1. I’m glad James reprinted this article, Kathy, because in a way it constitutes the same rhetorical question you are asking.

      I have asked more than once, and none of the lefties around here have found a way to answer: what is leftism today? I don’t know Dr. Tracy personally, so I don’t know if he saw that was the essential problem he had to ask himself when he wrote the piece, but he’s plenty smart, so I’ll give him that credit.

      Two aspects of the problem must be held in view:

      1) the state is stupid, and can’t conceivably be expected to control the health decisions of 330 million people with the kind of efficiency Amazon, or Apple seem to be able to effortlessly do the same.

      2) the state is evil, and has absolutely no interest in the well being of any of those millions that are not controlling it.

      If you keep these things in mind, it all makes sense. These people don’t care about us. They never will. It’s not that they don’t understand that some of us regard it as evil to force people to pay for health insurance that covers abortion. The point is, for them, we are the proles. Not even human. They have a New World Order to build, and they ain’t takin’ no questions from the proles.

      Dr Tracy certainly knows he’s asking a rhetorical question, because he has to know that what I said in my first comment on this page is true: the left, by definition, has to agree with the evil trends in site on this site.

      The foolish rank-and-file on the left have always been easily duped that their “leaders” have their interests at heart. Then, tens, hundreds, of millions of deaths later, the poor saps still want to believe. A sucker born every minute. All the way through the past. We can’t, it seems, learn.

      Why isn’t the left boiling up vats of tar, and plucking millions of chickens, and preparing to do to Barry and all his henchmen what any decent country would do to such scoundrels, over Obamacare? Because the game is lost. The left doesn’t care about anything of importance. (And as I contend, there is no “right” to speak of.)

      Damn. I have to leave. I was just getting to the good part. I’ll pick it up sometime tomorrow.

      1. Picking up…

        Dr. Tracy posits that the press on the left won’t question the dark realities he focuses on here at the memoryholeblog, because the great tax exempt foundations (which are just the great robber-baron fortunes that knew ahead of time to vaccinate themselves against the income tax confiscation scheme they launched to subject the rest of us to), dole out dribbles of that money–just enough to tame them.

        I keep asking the question: While there is no doubt that the recipients of these stipends are indeed controlled by their patrons, why would the left want to bring up those subjects, anyway?

        As Mollie, with a bit of exasperation, demonstrated, most of what passes for the left today–that is, the man on the street liberal–have no idea the evil roots of leftism. The article James linked to tells the tale. Marx, like his open acolytes (Lenin, Stalin, Castro, et al.) was unambiguously evil. It wasn’t hard to see, from the earliest years of the modern leftism we groan under today, that an iron hand crushing human liberty–openly displaying that what they want is Orwell’s “boot stomping on a face forever”–would not be popular in what remained of the West at that time. For public relations purposes, they devised a softer path to totalitarianism, called the Fabian Society, which was typified by people like H.G.Wells. Scan James’ footnotes in that article. Wells told of his intentions openly, in the titles of his books: The Open Conspiracy, The New World Order.

        The point is, the leaders of leftism are quite clear about what they intend the world to look like, and they are completely confident that the fools they trick into believing their fairy tales about the glorious state of the common man in the aftermath of their successful “fundamental transformation” will never read the source materials. They will just absorb and believe the articles in Mother Jones or the Nation. Orwell broke with that crowd when he painted the picture of what leftism intended to do to the rest of us. He was dying at the time he wrote it. I wonder if we would not have 1984 if he was certain that the state of his health was not going to shortly end in death. If he did, I’m betting that he’d find himself on a trip to Dallas before too many years passed.

        So Kathy, since this is already a socialist country, and our people are so completely dumbed down by now (see Charlotte Iserbyt, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America), the program for complete government control of our individual health seems to the public inevitable. And because the press is so completely under the control of the same crowd that cooked up the Fabian Society, the disaster that is the Obamacare rollout comes as a complete surprise for the man on the street leftist. Unless they seek out alternative sources of information, they had no idea. And predictably, at this point in the train wreck, the press is terrified at its need to report the story, because the state is the god of this new civilization we live inside of, and the press is its church. Telling the truth about this stuff feels like them like blasphemy

        Of COURSE, the whole program was comprised of blatant lies. Even the sheep, who believe Fabian socialism’s tender lies, would not have gone for it if they knew what it would really really be like.

        The central insight that Obamacare’s crash-and-burn launch gives us is that communism’s kissing cousin, fascism–which is the form of totalitarian leftism that America has adopted–can only work when the private sector agents of the state are allowed to operate with a large degree of autonomy. Hitler’s socialism could almost take over all Europe because private companies built his war machine for him. The great success of Hitler’s brand of socialism here in America, starting with the dark days when Franklin Roosevelt gained control of the country, has given the left a bad sense of overconfidence: by the era of Obama they thought they could take over the reins. That is, the communists among us convinced themselves that they were capable of building a fascist program that works as well as a fascist system could do. So the entities this crowd hired were no-bid, each of the ones selects having a track record of absolute failure–and price was no limit. Because they were connected. What could possibly go wrong?

        On true other hand, it’s possible the crowd in charge of this country had no intention that Obamacare would actually work, that the plan all along was to so damage the healthcare delivery system by their half-assed scheme that the proles would be thus driven to accept a complete government takeover–and the friends of the state in the insurance industry were all along to be simply thrown over the side of the bridge. If so, the Big Brains in the insurance industry didn’t see it coming. Maybe they are that stupid. I don’t know.

        From the time of America’s founding in 1620, all the way through to 1913, America was a fantastic experiment in freedom. If you were not black, or an Indian, it was pretty much a libertarian paradise. Never has the steady, rapid, increase in human well being seen in history. And it was all because there was close to zero state power over the individual. For the last century we have groaned under an ever increasing socialism, leading directly to 1984. Even though our wonderful libertarian system was so successful for three hundred years, very few people have any idea of that truth. The propaganda is so complete that the common man can not even imagine what freedom feels like. We’ve been here for four centuries, and the great freedom from the state we enjoyed for the first three of them has successfully been sent down the memory hole. In my opinion, that fact ranks right up there with the greatest tragedies in history.

        1. The plan all along was designed to fail, they will bring us to our knees begging for a total takeover. So many lies and the props standing behind the great speech maker seem to be under a spell. He kept repeating go on the site before 10/1 and see all the savings the plan has for you. I did and the site indicated pricing would not be available until after 10/1, still cannot see it. Sure would like to know someone who pays less for their healthcare than their cable bill. Suppose if they do exist, it is because the taxpayers are paying the balance of the many thousands it actually costs.

        2. Well, Patrick, I simply MUST take exception to this: “the man on the street liberal–have no idea the evil roots of leftism”

          Evil roots of leftism? Come on, that’s a bit of a stretch, I think. No, I’m not a Communist, not even a Socialist (although it gets me that you say our country is Socialist when that is used as a scare term!) You seem to be suggesting (correct me if wrong) – that leftism started with Marx and Engels. Ok, maybe a certain brand did, but I think there were left/right threads way farther back in our history than that.

          My feeling is that Liberals/Lefties/Progressives have really done some good. The union movement and laws for things like 40-hr work week, overtime, worker safety – came out of this movement. I know you don’t like FDR, but Social Security has done a lot of folks a lot of good.

          Now, another question is why wouldn’t Liberals want to cover such topics as 9/11 investigations, Sandy Hook unanswered questions, and I must also add – the NSA story (even that is not getting the traction it should get – even in the Liberal press). You know, I wish I had a good answer to that. One reason I myself became interested in these issues is that I really feel deeply about civil and human rights – and that comes out of my liberal thinking. I THOUGHT Liberalswere supposed to bevery concerned about these issues! Greenwald himself wondered why some who you would think would be railing against NSA abuses weren’t. I guess as I said in response to Helen down farther – it seems like as this article suggests, the money is talking. Couple that with a populace that seems to be apathetic and I would have to agree – dumbed down (as an educator I know how difficult it can be to reach may students (I think the factors are very complex and that’s a entirely new discussion) and voila – we have a big mess on our hands.

          So Patrick, how about we turn the discussion slightly? You, Mark, and others seem well-versed in Orwell. I get the feeling you’re pessimistic about the future and a “big-brother” state. So good folks, is there any HOPE?

        3. “One reason I myself became interested in these issues is that I really feel deeply about civil and human rights – and that comes out of my liberal thinking. I THOUGHT Liberalswere supposed to bevery concerned about these issues!”

          This is myth. It continues because of an intentional confusion foisted upon us by the myth makers.

          The terms left/right originate with the French Revolution, indicating which part of the room each faction sat in, the legislative body. All were socialist. The same pertains today, here, in America. It is the wholesale silliness people fall for, that because Nazism is called “right-wing,” it must be the opposite of communism, which is “left-wing.” Both are totalitarian systems, i.e. socialist. Both believe that individuals must submit their interests to the collective.

          To love civil and human rights is an innate good, born in every heart. Like a conscience. It is a love of freedom, a belief that all people should be treated as what they are, individual creations of God, made in His image. This is the opposite of socialism, whether of the left or the right. It is a love of liberty.

          The deception comes from the myth that the state can ensure these goods, when all the state can do is REMOVE goods, by force and coercion. The myth makers of the left have tricked good people like you into trusting the government to make people free, and to believe that this deceptive idea is the essence of of what is today called liberalism.

          To the extent you love civil and human rights, in other words, you are a libertarian–and you have been tricked into believing that only the state can provide that thing. This is cognitive dissonance, what Orwell called “doublethink”: holding two contradictory ideas at the same time and believing both.

          As long as you go on believing that the state can provide the good things that are the essence of libertarianism, you will witness a failure of the state to deliver those goods. That’s why lefties allow the government to constantly double down, to fix the added problems state intervention created–always further diminishing individual liberty. The end is totalitarianism. Inevitably.

          To achieve the good things you mention, love civil and human rights, you must strip the state of its authority over our lives. You can only be disappointed if you continue to believe that the state wishes to provide these things. Just think about how much worse off black people are now, as a community, than they were before the left was tricked into believing that the federal government should build a vast new plantation for them to live on, where the state would take care of all their needs. It should be perfectly obvious what a nightmare this “solution” has produced. Yet the left can’t see it.

          The only way to see it is to recognize that leftism produces only slavery.

        4. It’s fun to be a former lib, zem, because, as the singer said, “I’ve looked at life from both sides now.” Those who remain trapped on the left don’t have that perspective.

  19. The plutocratic financing of the American left is not emphasized enough, or at all, in the American truth consensus. It may well be largely responsible for how conservative the left has been historically. Corliss Lamont’s funding of the American CP, for example, may have been a reason why it was among the most conservative leftist tendencies. I didn’t know he was associated with the Morgans.

    The American government and Constitution was founded by the Founding Fathers to protect their property, including slaves. The ‘Checks and Balances’ prevented the nationalization of their later corporations, or the effective taxing of the rich.

    The anti-government and anti-tax policies, defended to a demented degree by Patrick and the Tea Party, was not effectively attacked by the left historically. Although naturally covered up as much as possible, it would be very revealing if an historical accounting could be furnished. It might account for a significant portion of the reason why we wound up in this Orwellian hellhole of the Terrorist War.

  20. This is an excellent and eye opening article. I too was under the impression for a long time that such tv news as Democracy Now and Link TV were still representative of a “free press”. I also supported “Truthout” and “Truthdig”. Oh well, another illusion crumbles. I know many folks who consider themselves “liberal” who support and believe every story on NPR. NPR does an excellent job of proclaiming their programs to be listener supported and therefore unbiased. Of course if one listens closely the fact that they are primarily government, corporate and foundation sponsored is evident. In fact, their website emphasizes how important government support is. Only 39% of NPR funding is from listener contributions. Thank you Dr. Tracy for pointing out that there is no difference between corporations and their supposed “philanthropic” endeavors. Before we accept anything as truth, we must first consider the source.

    1. Hi Helen –

      Yes, the article was interesting. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised as money still talks and it seems that money is running both sides of the debate.

      You mention NPR. I know everyone thinks it’s suspect. I check the NPR online news page. And if you really read carefully, they do seem to “lean” toward government positions. But I do find however, that they have stories that I don’t always see in other media. Just a baby step, but those who check in just may see something that they become curious about, and go to other sources to find out more. I find it gives me headlines to look for other places online.

      1. Hi to you Mollie, and yes I do agree that NPR has more varied news that can be informative. Still it concerns me that most people are not aware of the potential for bias there. I think a piece identified as an editorial or has a place in all media, but it the subtle influence that concerns me. Tell me what you think of this After reading this I had to ask if it was a coincidence that Israel is mentioned disproportionately or that American Muslims are under represented. In years past I identified, oddly enough as both Christian and “liberal” but now I realize that the myth of a two party system is just another illusion. Many conservatives argue that NPR has a liberal bias yet the flip side is that coverage of the Middle East seems conservative or at least more in line with the Christian right. Thus how I perceive government influence on NPR programs. I have learned that all of our beliefs must be revisited and that the history most of us have been taught must be re-examined. This is why I check every day to see if Dr. Tracy has updated his blog as I know that his comments will be thought- provoking, informative, and even challenging to my own comfortable opinions. I also anticipate all the comments of his readers, like you, who contribute a great deal to the conversation. People I know do not want to discuss these matters and it seems that controversy is worse than pornography and that any mention of a “conspiracy theory” will have eyes rolling faster than they can get away. Anyway, thanks for your reply to my comment!

    2. It is discouraging to say the least that both the left and right are manufacturing news for their own purposes. You must imagine there are very well meaning people on both sides of the argument in the middle that haven’t got a clue this is happening. I do agree, I’ve seen a proliferation of “anti-news” to the MSM that would appeal to someone like me who is disenfranchised with the lies of the main stream media, but like you I questioned their funding. Their production values are as good as the regular networks, and what’s with all the English accents?
      Anyway, it’s left me jaded and realizing that EVERYBODY has an agenda, and just keep your ears and eyes open. The real truth is what you are seeing in your own backyard and really the only place you can effectively express change.

  21. Are we still all fixated on this false left-right paradigm? Does it make any difference what party is in power? They are both beholden to the large banking interests and to the military industrial complex. We are still injecting ourselves or trying to inject ourselves militarily throughout the world and the big banks are strangling both 1st and 3rd world countries by saddling them with manufactured debt. Big government mixed with crony capitalism is what is ruling the world. The ruling elite is using their brand of socialism to subjugate and control. I would brand it neo-feudalism. It is born of greed and an insatiable materialism where there is never enough control and never enough wealth for them. The small businessman and the middle class are being crushed by these forces. If people awoke, they would realize that there are more of us than there are of them. The human spirit and its divine nature will triumph in the end.

    1. Absolutely! We need to unite in our goal of regaining the freedoms our forbearers once had. There is no need to waste energy labeling each other, we here are all right against wrong, good against evil and freedom lovers against slavery. If anyone has any doubt that their goal is to control every aspect of our lives and steal whatever fortunes we may have – this video should convince you.

    2. Hi Jack and Kathy –

      I really think you have something there. Of course this left/right thing is certainly a way to divide and conquer. Jack, I hope and pray you’re right that people will indeed wake up and as you say – “The human spirit and divine nature will triumph in the end.”

  22. also well worth reading is the cite by James of Michel Chossodovsky’s piece on managed dissent. Michel runs one of the two best news analysis forums on the internet: Global Research, (the other is Information Clearing House.)

  23. For the record, I don’t think the word “bearings” is correctly employed. “Bearings” means direction, such as in navigation. Better choices might be “undergirding,” “bases,” or “foundations,” I think.

  24. Patrick – I don’t buy your argument for a moment. I don’t buy that the only function ‘the state’ has is to ‘remove.’ I do feel that there is some role to play by government in I’ll say – ensuring the general welfare. We certainly cannot trust corporations to police themselves.

    And no, I am NOT a libertarian. Without going into it too much, what I do know about it convinces me that it isn’t what I believe in. That doesn’t mean that that voice shouldn’t be heard. The greatest check and balance we have is each other. If one voice is ‘put down’ it threatens that balance. Too far left? The right can raise its voice. Too far right – and the left should say something. Libertarians, Green Party folks can chime in as well with their concerns. Instead of name calling, we should look at ideas and policies on their own merits; I don’t think any one ‘side’ has all the answers.

    If you haven’t yet, read what Jack and Kathy have to say further down. They make a lot of sense.

    1. “I don’t buy your argument for a moment”

      Of course you don’t. That’s why the concept of “doublethink” is the key to Orwell’s dystopia. People don’t know they are practicing doublethink, and even when it is explained to them carefully and well, they can’t see it in themselves; this gives the state its power. The state has persuaded its subjects that it is indispensable in day to day living, that individuals could not make it through life without being controlled by government. This hoodwinking of the liberal-minded by the New World Order engineers has gone on for at least a century. Man-on-the-street lefties are proud of what they consider a grand history in the 20th century of advocating handing over to the state responsibilities we in America for three centuries knew were rightly the responsibility of individuals, families, churches and private charities.

      You really need to read my remarks again, Mollie, and think about what I actually said. I did not say you were a libertarian. I said your ideals are libertarian ideals, and that you have been hoodwinked into believing they are leftist ideals. You are not alone: all lefties have been hoodwinked in this way, so much so that it has become unimaginable for them to conceive of it being a good thing to return to the grand, libertarian America that flourished between 1620 and 1913.

      The goal of the left, I’ll say it again, is openly declared by people like H.G. Wells: world government, run by technocrats such as themselves. They knew that in the West they could not get away with what they did to the Russians, and later the Chinese and Cubans; here, they would have to trick the people into WANTING to be enslaved, but think that their slavery is freedom. This is why the left hated Orwell so: he showed the world that this socialist agenda was going to produce a nightmare, not a paradise. He spelled it out in horrifying fashion, exposing the man behind the curtain.

      The idea was to get us to hand over our freedom in the name of the state providing the libertarian goods we had always known could only be produced without the state’s interference, and not be able to see the ugly reality–in fact, to be so well indoctrinated that we will react as emotionally as you did, Mollie, in rejecting the idea.

      That’s why, to finally answer your final question last time, I have no hope. It is people such as yourself that must be persuaded that they are victims of a lifetime of brainwashing, if there is to be any hope of breaking the power of the architects of the New World Order, and this is very unlikely. I write lengthy explanations of these things here, and you read them, but remain unpersuaded. If I can’t turn wake up you, of all people, what about the vast majority, who never expose themselves to these truths at all, who only read and watch material that reinforces what they already believe about these matters?

      I spend so much time interacting with the people on this web site because it attracts smart, articulate people who are unafraid of the dark truths about the nature of the deeply troubling trends that prevail in this century. So it’s a self-selecting group of great potential for escaping the Matrix. Yet, I can’t get through to you. That’s a measure of how powerfully successful the forces of darkness have been in implementing their Plan.

      1. Dear Patrick –

        You can’t get through to me? Just because I don’t buy everything you say?

        Do you think because people question what is going and look for answers to unanswered questions they still have to think alike – your way? How boring! Do you think if I didn’t see that there were some threats to our liberties and all that I would even be here?

        I didn’t come here to get in arguments. I came here to seek info, see what others are thinking and how different theories, sites, are being “evaluated.” There’s such a lot to shift through – and trying to separate truth from false reports from disinfo isn’t easy. Instead I’ve had to put up with aspersions being cast on my point of view, and feel I must challenge views I may not agree with since I feel as though more than one viewpoint needs to be aired. I have always tried to post respectfully, though I often disagree.

        The debate about the role of government/the state has been going on – since at least our Federal period. My feeling is that we have to seek a balance between individual liberty and collective responsibility. No, the state can’t solve all problems, but again, I do feel it has a role to play. How about this – we can start toward a smaller government by defunding the NSA. I would certainly agree with that!

        P. S.
        “To the extent you love civil and human rights, in other words, you are a libertarian” – is that where you didn’t say I was a Libertarian?

        1. “to the extent”. That’s it exactly. The point is that this is a HIDDEN libertarianism. It is impossible for genuine rights to be promoted by the left, by definition. Leftism co-opts good things, and pretends to promote them. It is a sham, a fraud. TO THE EXTENT that you have good ideals, it does not matter if you are mistaken about their true nature: their true nature remains what it is, even if it’s wrapped in a false banner, and you believe the writing on the false banner. Good hearted lefties have been deceived.

          I’m sorry that my revealing this truth hurts your feelings, Mollie, but I’m not being mean. You consider it a matter of opinion because you believe the rhetoric of the left, and can’t imagine that it is a trick. But it is. The left needs good hearted people to believe their lies if the New World Order they have spent the last two centuries crafting is going to be finally be completed. And as I said, your emotional reaction to the man behind the curtain being exposed reveals how unlikely it is that they will be stopped. Again, as I said, if you, who do come here and read my comments, can’t be made to recognize that what I’m saying is based in fact and history, then what about all the rest, who are never even exposed to these ideas? This is why I can have no optimism.

        2. Ya know, Patrick, I just don’t think it’s worth it having to put up with all these arguments, and I’m sorry to say, your attitude.

          And Mark, sorry you couldn’t put 2 and 2 together and figure out why I wanted to communicate via e-mail.

          But I think I have my answer. I’ll probably be seeing you all around – sometime, maybe.

  25. Libertarianism, and the American truth consensus, is based on the pretense that we are ruled institutionally by a government. This is not only untrue, it is obviously untrue. Under capitalism we are ruled by both a government and corporations. The corporations can be profit, as is the mass media, or non-profit, like the churches. They work as a team. The government lies to the people, and corporate media and other truth organs repeat these lies as if they were true.

    The corporate institutions are controlled by their owners, managers, and financial banksters. In the last few decades they have morphed from multimillionaires to multibillionaires, and their power has increased accordingly. They use their control of the corps to control the government in their own interests, having the power to make the major economic and political decisions. The American people have lost all control of the American power system, and are now ruled by a plutocracy of wealth, disguised institutionally by the media and truth institutions that they control.

    They have created a society of enormous inequality: class inequality, racial inequality, gender inequality, and age inequality, enslaving the young with college debt, lack of medical care, and lack of jobs. To maintain this society of inequality, they are installing a plutocratic gangster state where they are immune from law, American tradition, and common decency. The imprisonment, torture, and murder of Americans under Bush-Obama is becoming and will become as nearly routine as it is among non-White Foreigners.

    In order to legitimate this plutocratic gangster state, they have to use against the American people lies, delusion, ideological repression, and irrationality. Patrick’s absurd assertions, that America is socialist and the American people leftists, is part of this obfuscation. Americans have actually been indoctrinated to support the homicidal racist imperialism of the American pluts, which is now being used against the American White people as well.

    Americans cannot unite to oppose this plutocratic gangster state being imposed on them because we do not have an ideological world-view that unites people against power. The socialist world-view of the 20th century is obsolete in certain respects, and the ideology developing in the 21st has not yet matured. We are thus caught between a dying ideology and one that has not yet been born.

    1. I don’t know if it’s a real incident or not, nor if the cause for it is what they say it is (hostility to TSA). But I have noticed there were two incidents at LAX recently in which TSA employees were involved in “pranks” planting bottles of dry ice around which exploded when the CO2 pressure built up. Ha-ha. It made me wonder if they were disgruntled about work or if this was a test of their skills. Since it happened at that airport (with which I am quite familiar), I kind of wonder how the gunman got that far. In some terminals, the escalator to TSA has been monitored in the past, so you don’t even get on it from your baggage check-in without a going-over. If they have lowered the surveillance at that point, maybe this will make it go up again. But how anyone could get all the way through — and then take out the gun — presumably they have it on monitors and we’ll all see it in every gruesome detail soon, won’t we?

      1. Another thought – is this Ciancia guy a vet – was he wearing military fatigues? Is that how he was able to get onto the escalator up to the inspectors? I know he is supposed to have been holding a ticket. But is that a possible angle – that he passed without difficulty due to that military garb? Nobody is saying much at the moment.

        Except …. this kind of mass hysteria looks right in terms of a spontaneous reaction, untrained and unrehearsed. But the source of the panicked flight – again, given the earlier incidents at LAX involving possible “disgruntled employees” or “labor disputes” (which began before the federal shutdown) – well, there is a lot of background to look at. However if someone just pulls a new solution off the shelf – such as shutting down airports until they can be rebuilt to spec – well, then I’ll know why some kid came from Jersey — for all the lucrative contracts!

        1. Of course the initial reports from unknown sources turn out to be incorrect. When all the spokesmen come out in their Sunday bests within hours declaring how great the response was and how well all the agencies worked together, even though there is currently a total lockdown and flights are not allowed in or out, a poor lady will have to walk 4 miles to her house with her luggage…. Uh OH HYMM the killer is Ciancia CIA n CIA. Worked in a nuclear power plant and when the slightest anomaly happened, all hands were on deck, the issue was resolved and analyzed over and over, with no rock left unturned. Never was there a remote thought that we should celebrate we all showed up the day our job required it…..

        2. Wondered if anyone would be discussing this. Ciancia’s hometown is only about 40 minutes from me. There are indeed nuclear power plants not far from there at all. But in the local report I just read, didn’t see mention of him working at one. Most reports seem to say he was in fatigues.

          The one local report said he had 2 roommates. Hmm Also, there’s that anti-government note. The abenews reporter said it had “NWO” in it – and he went on to say that stood for New World Order and that they were investigating to see if he had any ties to “domestic terrorism.” Gives one pause, eh?

        3. Mollie
          My purpose of mentioning my work at a nuclear power plant was solely to demonstrate the differences from the real world and the movie theater we are being inundated with. If there was a real crisis, the press would be given the facts, in every day operations, it was all about the business at hand, there was never a need to congratulate everyone for doing their jobs. This grandstanding about how the fbi, police, tsa, homeland security, atf, gov representatives, etc, are working so well together is total bs especially in light of the total lockdown of LAS and surrounding area while they are declaring how great they are! Normally, you do not congratulate yourself, if at all, until the job is done!

        4. I see what Kathy is saying about the self-congratulatory statements – when it looked like mass panic. The only thing that might be said is that the alleged gunman was stopped. But then everyone else had to stay after school and sit around pondering the event, even if they wanted to leave the airport. I don’t know how it all worked after the shooting, but it didn’t look pretty. And if he was able to go up an escalator with a rifle (and I have taken those escalators there – they make sure you are not sketchy even before you get in the line for TSA – I am in LAX about four times a year) – well, something was definitely not working right in that place. And the incidents earlier with the dry ice “pranks” point to trouble maintaining discipline among even TSA employees.

        5. PS: I forgot to mention – and you all may have seen it too – the head of TSA I believe – was congratulating everyone with — what’s the word? – “Resilience.” Yes, that buzzword for all these incidents. Gee everyone was so resilient after this shooting. The crowd in the waiting room (sitting there demonstrating they could “shelter in place”), the TSA, I guess, the cops. Everybody a good, hardy “resilient” hero. This is getting old. It has to be a word of art, a word applied uniformly in all such circumstances – whether real or fake. Or is it just the fake ones?

        6. Musings – Love your moniker and the sense of levity you bring to us. Those of us compelled to be critics of this motion picture show would do well to maintain a good sense of humor. Sure am glad I was not one of the 170,000 travelers stranded yesterday by the acts of a 23 year old!

        7. An executive order was signed on Friday ordering all cities and states to address the ‘issue’ of global warming. “The federal government must build on recent progress and pursue new strategies to improve the nation’s preparedness and resilience.”

  26. Patrick, I have a fondness for you because you laugh at my jokes. As to your Theories let me just say this: foosh. They are Ayn Randish, than which no theories could be more infantile.

    At her funeral, Ayn Rand (nee Alycia Rosenbaum) had a seven foot high wreath shaped into a form of a dollar sign. I miss all the good funerals. This is vulgarity made Big, like her novels. Reports, however, that there was also a dollar sign tattooed on her ass could not be independently verified.

    1. I’ve always been told to read her. Never have made the time. The world is full of books; what I find the highest priority of history, and my stack of those is impossibly high right now, and good new ones are constantly being published.

      While people who know me say I must read Rand, So much of what I’ve read about her personal life and her capabilities as a writer have soured me on the idea of tackling her huge novels. For instance, regarding her thought, an entire atheistic religion, called, if I remember rightly, “objectivism,” has sprung up around her memory. Everything I have heard about it makes me want nothing to do with her.

      Still, people tell me I sound like I’ve read her, or that I’d love her books if I read them. I won’t be getting to them any time soon.

      Now, Mark, if my ideas are infantile, they are the result of a very seriously scholarly infant’s long years of deep study. A very odd species of infantilism, indeed.

  27. What did you have in mind, Mollie. You know, we have very different views of politics; I regard politics as a war by other means between people and power. I think that Free Enterprise historically has, especially in the USA, degenerated into political gangsterism. We are currently being ruled, and disempowered, by political gangsters, both corporate and private. I’m not in favor of cuddling up to them intellectually, morally or physically. You regard liberalism as Leftism; I don’t.

  28. I am reading a book now–JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE– that is enormously researched and highly praised by the honest assassination truthers. It differs from the other assassination books by putting the murder in a world-historical setting, especially the Vietnam and Cuban wars.

    What is relevant to the plutocratic financing of dissent is how little power Kennedy had against the homicidal bureaucracies of the military and intelligence agencies, and their corporate supporters. Once the limits of dissent are institutionalized, not even the president of a Superpower can go beyond them. Kennedy’s subordinates simply wouldn’t do what they were told; on the contrary, they promoted policies precisely contrary to his.

    One wonders if Obama was aware of the Sandy Hook scenario and Marathon bombings ahead of time. I got a strange feeling on reading his words that he might not of been, at least of Sandy Hook. I got the same feeling about Bush jnr in the 9/11 bombings. It’s conceivable that the Demonic Duo of Cheney-Rumsfield simply got him out of the way to read stories to little children.

    If a homicidal consensus develops before the conspiracy occurs, it may be impossible for one man to stop, no matter how powerful he is. So it is the dissent consensus developed beforehand that is critical in stopping these homicidal operations, including wars. But if the dissent is manufactured by the plutocracy’s media, foundations, and agencies, this will often be impossible.

    So what is needed is some other form of financing dissent, info, and historical background. Maybe Omidyar can provide it, if he wants to do Good with his money. After all, Engels was a textile capitalist. However, considering the other journalists they are hiring, it doesn’t look likely. One guy has a long career on the Washington Post. But maybe Greenwald, etc has something in mind to subvert the Orwellian fantasy of the authorized American truth. If not, the question of financing effective dissent is still on the table.

  29. The Kennedy assassination occurred under the threat of a preemptive first strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and the head of the CIA, Allen Dulles, consistently put pressure on Kennedy to authorize a first strike capacity. Indeed, in the Cuban Missile crisis, there was overwhelming pressure for a first strike on Soviet missiles in Cuba. This is the Unspeakable in Jim Douglass’s JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE.

    Oswald was set up by the CIA to have murdered Kennedy with the complicity of the Soviet Union and Cuba. Johnson wouldn’t go along with this, and may have given the military the Vietnam war instead. The assassination appears much more rational, and diabolical, given the war it was intended to start. It makes the Proclaimed truth of Oswald as the lone assassin, and the overwhelming evidence that Kennedy was shot at least once from the front, much less important if the assassination caused a war. The USA has routinely lied to the American people throughout history to begin wars, often by false flag operations.

    However the Kennedy assassination began the Orwellian homicidal operations that led to the 9/11-anthrax homicide that began the Terrorist War. And, as well, the Orwellian Terrorist state that is being imposed on us.

Leave a Reply