By James F. Tracy

This is a subtly revised set of remarks given at “The Point is to Change It” conference on November 1, 2013 at the University of San Francisco. The event was co-sponsored by Project Censored.

The panel on which I participated was organized by Project Censored Director Mickey Huff to address the contrast between the radical journalistic activity practiced by Project Censored and the decade-old US media reform movement that has sought to initiate broader policy changes at the federal level. In previous years PC has been excluded from media reform events, likely because of its research and criticism of foundation-funded progressive-left media and the censorial practices they impose on themselves and their peers.

The feedback from conference-goers to the panel’s observations was predictable. For example, “9/11 Truth has no facts. Look at how it relies on Alex Jones and Loose Change. Let’s move on.” [Read: I shall not be identified with amateurs and fanatics. Or, Why risk being perceived as politically incorrect.] And, “It is impossible to be radical without a vigorous critique of capitalism.” [Read: Extreme historical myopia is sometimes practical and necessary. Or, 9/11 is a career-ender.]

I appreciate Project Censored’s invitation to participate in the event and its continued endeavors to spread the word on the fundamental relationship between mass media and the broader political economy.


What does it mean to be radical? What is radical intellectual activity? It involves identifying, examining, and publicizing the root causes of major problems in the body politic that hinder the full realization of each individual’s human capacities.

What are the possible areas where such inquiry may take shape? The “News Clusters” that Project Censored has been using in its recent yearbooks provide a rough outline: the economy, war, health and the environment, the viability of the commons (as evidenced by Iceland), and civil liberties and freedom of expression, because without the ability to be able to express ourselves we cannot demonstrate our freedom and contest wrongdoing.

Around the time I was born Noam Chomsky wrote “The Responsibility of Intellectuals,” suggesting that radical intellectual activity along these lines is necessary if we are to survive as a species. “It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak truth and expose lies,” Chomsky asserted.[1]

Aside from Chomsky’s abandonment of this principal in terms of questioning deep events, the mid-to-late 1960s was a far different world from the one we inhabit today. In contrast to the 1960s, there is now a fast-emerging police state, the loss of Constitutional protections, a “war on terror” we are told will be without end, and huge economic disparities. And so any such responsibility is much greater than it was then because the stakes are much higher.

Scholars with institutional backing have some security from which to operate along these lines. Apart from the support afforded through an academic position, the greatest hindrance to carrying out radical intellectual activity involves the question of money and resources.

With this in mind there is a tendency for progressive-left media to inordinately rely on funding from tax-free foundations, with attendant consequences for their output. This is no better illustrated than in John Pilger’s first-hand account in Project Censored’s most recent volume. In 2011 Pilger’s The War You Don’t See became “the film you don’t see” courtesy of the Lannan Foundation pulling the rug out from underneath Pilger as he was about to embark on a US tour promoting the work.

What is at least as disheartening here is how many figures that once stood by Pilger and his work, such as Amy Goodman and Chris Hedges, turned their backs on him as he sought to better understand Lannan’s abrupt and inexplicable change of heart.[2]

Indeed, this instance illustrates the problems central to media that claim to be “radical” today: the immense power of such foundations is more than capable of exerting a stealth form of censorship and conformity that is close to impossible to accurately detect and gauge.

Further, the financial wherewithal of liberal foundations–Ford, Carnegie, Gates, Soros–far exceeds that of their conservative counterparts–Bradley, Olin, Scaife, Koch. What does that mean for the integrity of our information and opinion environments?

With these things in mind I waned to read a few observations made by Global Research editor and University of Ottawa Professor of Economics Michel Chossudovsky, who was unable to be on the panel this morning. His remarks are significant particularly in terms of charting the independent nature and trajectory of radical media today. Once you start receiving money from tax-free foundations,” Chossudovsky notes,

you lose your independence.  We see it on the internet now. There are a number of internet [news] sites which look a little bit like the New York Times—the online version. They’re still doing good work but they’re becoming a little bit more politically correct.

So there’s a mainstream alternative media and then there’s an alternative media which I think is independent. There are not many, and that is the disturbing feature; many of the alternative media sites now are becoming corporatized. We want to avoid that. That’s they’re decision, but we have taken the decision that we do not seek any foundation funding which limits us from a budget point of view. It means that we [function] on a much more modest scale but we manage to be just as effective by doing that and we have the advantage of not being constrained to a particular perspective.[3]

How exactly does this dynamic play out in practical terms? Again, it is difficult to measure. Yet the FBI whistleblower Sibol Edmonds provides a clue. Edmonds notes how she received special guidance from foundation gatekeepers after she accepted money from a George Soros-financed foundation as she was assembling a body of like-minded government insiders and whistleblowers.

Very quickly I realized that this money—these carrots they were dangling before our nose[s]—came with a bunch of string attachments. Because as I was talking with these people form these foundations I was adding more whistleblowers.

And in one case one [individual] from Clinton’s previous administration joined the coalition who had blown the whistle on Al Gore and some narcotics-related case with the Drug Enforcement Agency. When I added this particular whistleblower—and he’s still there on our list—these foundation people came and they said, “Why are you adding the Clinton administration whistleblower? Right now we are focused on [the] Bush administration. This is [a] distraction. And you should just limit [things] all this current wrongdoing and don’t get in to all the Clinton stuff. Basically this is just one example of many examples.[4]

How perhaps does this dynamic play out at a more macro level? Two areas where there has not been enough serious intellectual activity and rigor of late is climate change and the crimes of 9/11, and it is truly amazing how so frequently the former is embraced by the left while the latter is dismissed–equally out of hand.

Think about it. The annual amount of foundation funding going toward publicizing forms of environmentalism is gargantuan.[5] There is, after all, a lot at stake: A new derivatives market, and setting up the “smart grid,” both of which lay the groundwork for heightened government surveillance and eventually enforced austerity.

Is there any money devoted to a 9/11 truth commission or the equivalent? None. Is it discussed? Nope. How’d it happen? Blowback. Why is there a “war on terror” at home and abroad? They’re protecting us from Al Qaeda.

9/11 is a root cause of a vast number of major problems in the body politic–war, the police state, the illicit drug trade, and on and on. At present, almost all roads lead back to it. What progressive outlets are discussing it? Global Research and Project Censored. How much foundation funding do they get? Practically none. Coincidence?

More than ever, the responsibility of intellectuals remains “speaking truth and exposing lies.” Yet as the foregoing suggests, in the post-9/11 era particularly, the radical intellectual quest for “truth” itself has now become a commodity capable of being bought, sold and thus censored by some of the most wealthy entities on the planet. These murky forces do not just find the examination of topics like 9/11 unseemly; they also share an active interest in keeping them perpetually unexamined and suppressed.


[1] Noam Chomsky, “The Responsibility of Intellectuals,” New York Review of Books, February 23, 1967.

[2] 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. See also “The War You Don’t See Pilger Film Banned By Lannan Foundation,” Information Clearing House, June 10, 2011.

[3] Devon DB, “Michel Chossudovsky on the Creation of Global Research,” GRTV, June 19, 2012.

[4] James Corbett, “The War on Whistleblowers: Sibol Edmonds on GRTV,” GRTV, October 11, 2011.

[5] James F. Tracy, “The Forces Behind Carbon-Centric Environmentalism,” MemoryHoleBlog, July 12, 2013.

Republished at and InformationClearingHouse on November 5 and 6, 2013.

Leave a Reply

28 thought on “The Censorship That Dare Not Speak Its Name”
  1. The world of the mid to late 1960s was, as noted, far different from that of today. But this should not be attributed to any fundamental difference in the nature of the ruling class. The elite at that time were seriously concerned about socialism and the potential threat to their privileged status. There was a need to keep the American masses placated with liberal reforms, even as America’s young men were sent to die in Vietnam protecting elitism.

    It is no coincidence that America’s golden years, the time of middle class prosperity and growth, were also the Cold War years. Now we see the clock being rolled back to the bad old days before the socialist “threat.” There is no longer any need to placate the middle class with liberalism and prosperity. Instead there are intensive efforts to kill it off.

    1. The elite were never and have never been “seriously concerned about socialism and the potential threat to their privileged status.”

      The elite FUNDED and RAN socialism (Christian Democracy in Europe, Democrats here across the Atlantic) and ran communism. The elite never had any fear of it whatsoever. Creeping socialism ensured the smoldering conflict between ‘left’ and ‘right’, which they wanted and the eventual synthesis they wanted. America’s golden years were permitted to happen in order to fund communism and to keep it afloat long enough to gain a foothold all around the world, including here in North America via the inexorable growth of bureaucracies under which we live. The corporation of the USA was established in 1868. The Fed Reserve was established in 1913. There was only a pretense at following or upholding the constitution all these many years. The velvet glove is slowly being removed.

      1. This is the standard libertarian/Alex Jones distortion.

        Big government does not equal “socialism.” In America, big government has had two objectives: to empower a criminal capitalist elite, and to wage a global war on socialism (public ownership of industry). That illegal and immoral war on socialism has claimed millions of lives going back to WWII, in which America’s right-wing elite sponsored the rise of Nazism.

        The Jones distortion is a grotesque affront to those millions of victims, which also aids the forces of tyranny by clouding their true nature.

        1. Monopoly capitalism is the best friend of socialism. Monopoly capitalism has NOTHING in common with free market capitalism.

          Big business is the addon that turns marxism into fascism.

  2. Project Censored.

    Politically Correct.

    Personal Computer.


    Only acronyms, slogans and codewords are of use in today’s fashionable world of espionage, business and corruption. Did I mention business? Did I mention fashionable? Did I mention corrupt?

    Secretive, furtive and select (multiple choice with only one correct answer) are the winners. As well as violent in the extreme.

    Toto, we’re not in Kansas anymore.

    There are only winners and losers in the Land Of Oz.

    We’re in business.

  3. “Is there any money devoted to a 9/11 truth commission or the equivalent? None. Is it discussed? Nope. How’d it happen? Blowback. Why is there a “war on terror” at home and abroad? They’re protecting us from Al Qaeda.”

    James, I appreciate your desire to see a genuine alternative media probe the roots of the deep politics issues we confront in our era, and being a former leftie I can sympathize with your desire to see the left do that probing, but I think you are deluding yourself a bit here. As I have argued in the last couple of posts, Soros (although I did not name him) exemplifies the left; if the modern left has its roots in the H.G. Wells/Fabian Socialist-Antonio Gramsci plotting and planning, George Soros is the fruit of that deadly tree that Orwell describes so well.

    In the radio interview featured in your last post, you speak of opinion leaders on the left, and their refusal to “stand up in a give and take” a few months back when you proposed that certain of them answer a list of tough questions–which they all refused to do. “I think they rely on the good-naturedness, and perhaps the naiveté, of their readerships, who don’t want to go in the direction of asking serious questions…”, you said. To be fair, the example you gave immediately after was 911, but I contend it’s the whole package of leftism you could be describing. What I mean is this. Leftism, whether it’s Hitler’s brand or the brand Stalin and Mao pushed, has as its goal to aggrandize the state, and it leads, inevitably, to totalitarianism. There’s no way to activate state power, and then arrest it at a goldilocks “just right” point of half-way tyranny.

    It is certainly the “good-naturedness,” and, absolutely, “the naiveté,” of their readerships that maintains this juggernaut. The vast majority of people attracted to what the left claims to represent, if they had any idea of what the Fabian Socialists had in store for them, would reject it in a New York minute. That in their good-natured hopefulness they have been drawn into the active creation of Orwell’s dystopia is unimaginable to them. This is a great sadness to me, because there should be no liberal-minded people on the left.

    I have no use for the thing that passes for the “right” today, because outside of Ron Paul, opposition to totalitarianism of both left and right varieties (think Stalin and Hitler), is never genuinely proposed by the “right,” because it really doesn’t want to undo the edifice that leftism has already built–which, in this country, would mean firing 90% of government employees, and eliminating the Fed. That is, going back to the freedom we once knew. Not going to happen. So we remain trapped in a debate about how fast the world we live in should continue to be burned down. Ron Paul, alone, in the last presidential contest, offered the idea that five Federal Departments should be eliminated. I call that a good start, but the political reality in this country is that it’s a complete non-starter. The so-called “right” has no interest in dismantling the bureaucracy, because it’s really only the right half of the big left.

    So, as I have been arguing, since the left is defined by the growth of the power and intrusiveness of the state, I wonder why you are surprised that the media organs of the left don’t resist the temptation to allow themselves to be censored by the great tax exempt foundations? It’s been the same all along, as Rene Wormser demonstrated in his seminal report Foundations: Their Power and Influence. The goal of the left in America has always been to use all that tax-exempt robber baron money to usher in the New World Order. They say it openly.

    I argue that the question you should be asking is: are the people you are disappointed in for allowing their paymasters to make them pull their punches truly leftists to begin with? If they are, anything that helps Wells/Soros to produce their dream of a World Government should be fine with them, and they won’t want to hinder it. That is, the “war on terror” is the perfect expression of the leftist strategy to get to Orwell’s dystopia. If you don’t think that that’s what they want, and that they’d in truth like to dismantle leviathan, well, in that case they are deluded–they are not really leftists at all. If so, I’d recommend you shift your focus to apprising them of that fact. What they are is libertarians who don’t realize it.

    Now, I think the people you mention, who take the money and disappoint you so for taking their subsequent marching orders, really ARE leftists, and have no desire to strip the state of its tyrannical power over individual lives. What I’m saying is your disappointment in them is misplaced. They don’t WANT to report things that will cause the reversal the growth of government power. They are fine with Soros’ dictates.

  4. When the War on Communism of the 20th century segued into the War on Terrorism of the 21st, a new form of despotism began emerging in America and the West. The National Security State of the Cold War segued into an Orwellian Terrorist State of the Terrorist War. The gangster methods of homicide, torture, hijacking and kidnapping, extortion, and drug dealing began replacing the USA financial power that was diminishing. It was justified and legitimated by a flagrant form of deceit dramatized by Orwell in 1984.

    However in the novel 1984, the Orwellian power systems emerged from Communism. The USA Terrorist State, on the contrary, emerges from Free Enterprise and Liberalism. The authorized lies are produced by the Free Press; the impoverishment of the people is produced by Free Enterprise; the monstrous inequality occurs in a Democracy; the murder, torture and other unaccountable methods of American power occur under a Government of Law.

    The Proclaimed truth of power is precisely contrary to the operative reality-based truth. Both are included in the media, universities, churches and other truth organs. This creates a doubletruth consensus of both the authorized deceit of power and the reality-based truth needed by the people. The American people internalize this double standard. Americans are Educated, Informed, and Entertained to identify with both the Proclaimed truth and the operative truth. they conflict. This doubletruth conflict creates Orwell’s famous concept of doublethink, the ability to hold two conflicting ideas in our heads at the same time, and to believe both of them.

    As James points out, the problem is the money needed to do the research necessary to tell the reality based truth. I wonder if this can be gotten from a political movement based on cooperatives rather than unions. The cooperatives now are not linked and politicized, but if they were, on an international basis, a truth organ could be subsidized that told the truth from the perspective of the people rather than national power. This truth would subvert the religious, political, and scientific truth of national power systems that, largely covertly, legitimates power and, in doing so, demeans, denigrates, and marginalizes people.

    James agrees that it is the responsibility of intellectuals to tell the truth and expose lies. But have they ever done so historically? Of course there have been a few, and they have been emphasized and pointed to by the Educated classes, but have most of the Educated ever told the truth when that truth subverted authorized power? Or have they routinely sucked up to power. Have they told historically only the Respectable dissident truth, that truth that served the interests of the powerful.

    We are living at a time in history when the dissident truth of marxism, etc is historically obsolete, if only partially so. Conceptual innovations associated with American social science allow us, should we wish, to begin a truth revolution conceptually similar to the scientific revolutions in the history of the natural sciences. Such truth revolution is essential for combating the Orwellian truth of American power, and for combating as well, I would contend, the Orwellian Terrorist state. But the question can be asked, at least by the Uneducated, would such a revolution occur among the Educated Elite, or among the truthers of the general population.

  5. “…they also share an active interest in keeping them perpetually unexamined and suppressed.” And I have to wonder if this interest doesn’t imply actual involvement at some level, or at least foreknowledge and collusion.

      1. “More than ever, the responsibility of intellectuals remains “speaking truth and exposing lies.”
        It seems to me you’ve missed the wider point: those who are deemed to be “intellectuals” have been vetted and raised up to the status of ‘intellectual’ by the powers-that-be. Otherwise, their thoughts, writings, musing, etc. wouldn’t see the light of day (and certainly not given the funding needed to prop them up). The only reason they become intellectual ‘stars’ is because their blathering aides & abets, whether willingly or unknowingly, (but most often knowingly) the agenda of the elite. No one gets any kind of ‘status’ (like a Chomsky) unless he’s playing for the team.

  6. “As James points out, the problem is the money needed to do the research necessary to tell the reality based truth.”

    There is so much thoughtful comment on this page, both in the article and the responses, I hesitate to call BS. But I must…

    Does anyone truly, in their heart, believe the problem is a LACK OF MONEY to tell the truth? Ridiculous. I could give you $5 billion tomorrow and have you come up with the most sophisticated advertising campaign ever waged and it would barely move the needle.

    The problem isn’t that the truth isn’t available. The problem is the vast majority of Americans DON’T WANT TO HEAR IT. They do not want to be told the America they believe in is a pack of lies, told to them by criminals with badges, foisted on them with any level of violence needed, with the end goal of enslaving them as surely as the plantation denizens of the Old South.

    The story is not the problem, nor are the storytellers. The listeners are the problem…and that is a fairly intractable problem.

    I am of the opinion that you will get a mass conversion of opinion parallel to a mass event(s) that is so patently authoritarian and drastic that even the somnambulists will awake. The Arabs had a spring, I think. The question is will that be too late to make a difference? Probably.

    IMO, we are living at a time of quantum change. There will be no “evolution” out of this tyranny. There will be war to end it. It may or may not be successful. But that there will be war with the elite, I am quite sure.

    1. I agree Polly, the majority of people don’t want to hear the truth, they like to live in a Fairy Tale.. they want nothing to spoil their hard working – cosy home life, it frightens the hell out of them to be told ”all is not what it seems”.. it’s not only Americans -I have friends who still think Bin Laden was behind 9/11, and have fear about immigrants.. the propergander has definatley worked on some people. Unless the MSM starts reporting ‘ news’ that is truthful and brings up discussions outside their tight programme..and tells it like it is.. The bulk of the people will remain apathetic. The silence tells it all.

  7. Patrick, I really liked the part about the left having its roots in the H.G. Wells-Gramsci axis, the tree which lead to the fruit of Soros. Have you ever thought of going into political vaudeville? You’d be a smash hit.

    1. Perhaps you and Patrick should start your own blog where you can have a two-man debating club and take turns giving each other slaps on the back. Looking back to some of you guys’ earlier exchanges one could see a slight (sometimes very overt) animosity. Now all of a sudden you’re all chummy and hoisting up veritable toasts of single-malt Scotch to one another (that was for you Patrick). I agree with a former commenter about the condescension and attitude displayed in certain commenters towards others.

      Apologies, James. I’m not usually one to make certain personal references, but sometimes it’s hard to ignore the ‘monopolization’ by active personalities that dominate blog comment sections. I hope you won’t censor me. I appreciate the work that you do, but I feel I have to call out some things. Please don’t let this site turn into a ‘boys’ club’ so often found in alternate venues.

    1. Difficult to know which area is most crucial given the ongoing extremes.

      However, I have decided that the Fukushima meltdown may be where we should be concentrating. Predictions project if it blows, the US is vulnerable and Japan is history. It could be more hype; it could be true. Alex Jones says he is seriously thinking of moving to South America. This doesn’t surprise me. But Jones is always so up-tempo on most issues he often cancels rational deliberation.

      My point is that if the worst-case scenario comes to pass, discussions of political philosophy becomes moot. I don’t think I have to elaborate. Just hope for the best but plan for the worst. Take care. Other than that, I can offer little substance to the thread. I am old enough to remember the best of American society. And I weep for what we lost, even though much information was sanitized in our ‘great leap forward.’

      Thanks be for many of reason still fighting the good fight. People of good will have always been the last stand for freedom, against tyranny.

    1. I’ve made a mistake. Was looking at the Google map orientation of the school and mistook side for front.

      If officers breached south east doors, they were indeed breaching a side door.

      My apologies!!

  8. Chomsky covers some of his history in the film “Rebel Without a Pause”—the rebel referred to is Chomsky, the film alleges. What it does not mention is he had some of his research funded by the US military, if I recall correctly (See October 27’s Corbett report for more on this). A few other loose ends: The building which houses Chomsky’s office at MIT was built with Koch money (not shocking considering most academic buildings take the names of war criminals, but interesting still, I think); he was put out there as an academic television star as far back as the 1960s, debating the likes of the de-generate change agent Michael Foucault, and counter intelligence specialist William Buckley over the years.

    Rebel—this has to be one of the most misused words ever. I don’t think I’ve ever known a man called “rebel” to seek truth. Actually, Chomsky ties his philosophical linage to none other than Bertrand Russel. He has stated as much in a number of interviews. We all know who Russell is, right?

  9. Chomsky and many other linguists and researchers into aural and visual perception was funded by the Air Force. Why? Much of mk ultra was conducted through the airforce. This sounds wacky but take a look at I dream of genie.

  10. Great article Prof. Tracy! An accurate description of the ‘information universe’ in which we live and, by implication, of where the ‘power’ that controls its dissemination is concentrated: outsized private wealth and the corporate tyrannies that it controls. Sadly, it does come down to a question “of money and resources.”

    In reading your article, I was reminded of a piece written by Albert Einstein for Monthly Review, that to my mind compliments your article and reads in part as follows:

    (Beginning of quote:)

    Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

    (end of quote.)

    (source of quote:

  11. November 22 will be the fiftieth anniversary of the John Kennedy assassination, the prototype of the homicidal conspiracy operations that have followed it. The NY Times have already begun the deceit machinery in an article assuming prominently that Oswald was the Lone Assassin. Although polls have shown that in excess of three quarters of the American people believe that the government, and media lied about it, the media is more or less adamant in maintaining the original Warren Commission conclusions.

    The reason is the 9/11-anthrax homicides, and the overwhelming evidence that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolitions. This implies an inside source of elements of American power which were crucially involved in the massacre of the American people, which can never be admitted by American power. The implication that American power will kill thousands of American people for its own political purposes is too ideologically explosive to the American power system to expose.

    What is most important now for the American people is not the homicidal operation conspiracy itself, but the media coverup conspiracy by all the mainstream media: largely a conspiracy of silence. Because, having successfully lied about these homicides in the past, the historical inertia is to lie about them in the future. The government powerful lie to the people and the media repeats their lies as if they were true.

    The reason the media conspiracy or media consensus is most important is because we live in a world of nuclear weapons, and it is to the military interests of the military and other homicidal agencies to legitimate their use. A staged Terrorist attack, trumpeted against some hideous Enemy by the media, could mobilize the American people around homicidal power that could lead to the massive destruction of the earth’s people.

    This is not farfetched. Covered up by the media in the Kennedy assassination was the promoting of a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union by the American military and intelligence agencies, revealed in Jim Douglass’s JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE. The American people must learn to distrust, more than we do now, American power and its media when it embarks on a homicidal policy.

    It has formulated plans for a nuclear war against China, called AirSea Battle. Although a nuclear war with China is insane from a people’s perspective, it is not insane from a power perspective, or a military perspective. The nightmare of history is full of this power insanity, and it can only be entered into by a media conspiracy or consensus deluding the people of its necessity or desirability. The homicidal conspiracies and their media coverups that began in the Cold War with Kennedy are being continued in the Terrorist war with Bush-Obama and the presidents who follow them. A salutary distrust of what we are told by authorized power and its media s essential, perhaps for our very survival and the survival of our children and grandchildren.

    1. Mark, It is amusing to witness so many people who rightfully deny 9/11 hoax of airplanes, hijackers, Bin-laden, etc. yet cling to the hoax of thousands murdered. What part of a myth do you enjoy embracing?

Leave a Reply