By James F. Tracy

Progressive-left icon and public intellectual Noam Chomsky has derided the 9/11 Truth movement and been similarly dismissive of “conspiracy theories” for many years. The famous activist-academic recently remarked how “a lot of people … spend an hour on the internet and think they know a lot of physics” when attempting to fathom the bizarre collapses of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001. “It doesn’t work like that.”

Chomsky is likewise indifferent to the possibility that forces within the US government had a hand in the events of 9/11, invoking “overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration wasn’t involved.”[1] Chiding those who may suggest otherwise, he adamantly concludes that “the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged.” In other words, plans of such magnitude could not be successfully carried out without a good number of people knowing.[2] The system works, and thus the rule of law prevails.

In 1969 Chomsky made a conscious decision to avoid publicly addressing the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Thereafter he “played an important role in the orchestrated debate which has focused the significance of the murder of Kennedy around the issue of the U.S. involvement in the war in Vietnam,” author E. Martin Schotz observes.[3]  Chomsky thus safely positioned himself to reject any notion that November 22, 1963 “was a high-level conspiracy” with “significance” for US foreign policy as “implausible to quite an extraordinary degree.” Again, as with 9/11, “evidence against this claim is overwhelming, from every testable point of view, remarkably so for a historical event.” Such evidence needn’t be produced, since confirmation of the position itself is less significant for Chomsky’s adherents than having the wise old sage disparage armchair physicists or “ordinarily rational” opponents who exhibit “a kind of cult-like reaction” toward JFK’s demise.[4]

If the figure in question were merely a run-of-the-mill commentator his remarks might be undeserving of serious consideration. Yet Chomsky is a powerful molder of public opinion, particularly among leftish intellectuals inclined toward political thought and engagement. With this in mind, the MIT luminary’s dismissal of curious and concerned citizens as “conspiracy theorists,” particularly in the wake of 9/11, has no doubt discouraged a broad and potentially influential swath of Americans from more seriously questioning the true motives behind the shadow state and the overall latitude it routinely exercises.

Indeed, Chomsky’s stance on critically evaluating momentous public events at least partly follows the rhetorical method laid out in Central Intelligence Agency Document 1035-960, the declassified dispatch sent to the Agency’s foreign bureau chiefs in April 1967. The document instructed personnel to touch base with “friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)” and “propaganda assets” in an effort to shore up the Warren Commission’s “lone assassin” theory of the JFK assassination.

Having played key roles in the assassination and its cover-up, the CIA took a special interest in “discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries.”[5] Recommended techniques involve highlighting poorly-founded and often ridiculous positions. For example,

*Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others
*Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States
*Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride, and
*No significant new evidence has emerged which [officials] did not consider[6]

Document 1035-960 suggests how enlisting the services of formal intellectuals and public opinion leaders was at least as important an objective for propping up the Warren Report’s “lone assassin” and “magic bullet” hypotheses as it is today in defending the official explanation of 9/11.

By the late 1950s many major US news media outlets had already been penetrated by the CIA to a substantial degree,[7] a phenomenon suggested in their overall disparagement of Warren Commission critics and vigorous defense of the official lone gunman thesis through the mid-to-late 1960s. Independent researchers and authors were routinely derided with terms such as “amateur sleuths,” “mythmakers,” and the now-familiar standby, “conspiracy theorists.”[8]

Such “[s]elf-appointed investigators” and “cocktail party dissenters,” Time magazine quipped, constitute a “cult of parlor detectives … at work throughout the nation.” Again, being motivated through a sort of elusive faith, the novices “have in effect turned the quest for the ‘real assassin’ into an evangelistic vocation.”[9]

Following the issuance of 1035-960, select intellectuals emerged in major media to present their ostensibly nonpartisan evaluations of JFK assassination “buffs,” and Warren Commission “doubters” and “skeptics.” One such scholar was Oxford University’s John Hanbury Angus Sparrow, a “Latinist and attorney by training,” whose expertise included “such disparate subjects as the Profumo Affair, Lady Chatterley and the plagiarisms of a 17th century Polish poet.”[10]

In late 1967 Sparrow wrote an 18,000-word commendation of critics and defense of the Commission’s findings that appeared in the London Times Literary Supplement. For Sparrow “the errors in the “‘critics’ reasoning are obvious” because, like today’s 9/11 eccentrics, they “’put forward good points and bad alike, mingle discredited assertions with valid evidence, and make up for weak links in their hypothesis by asseveration and abuse of the Dallas police, the FBI and the commission.’”

In terms repeated years later by Chomsky and similar progressive-left notables, Sparrow rails against the “contention that the [JFK] assassination was a consummately scripted plot” and “scoffs at the idea that a gunman could have fired from an exposed position and ‘got clean away in full view of the public.’” The “’demonologists’”—authors such as Joachim Joesten, Mark Lane, Edward Epstein, and New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison—are at an advantage given “’the old adage–populus vult decipi: the public is very ready to be deceived.’”[11]

Another Chomsky-like precursor in affirming the official version of events surrounding JFK’s demise was former Brandeis University dean and President Lyndon Johnson’s “intellectual in residence” John B. Roche. In fact, “Roche’s law” resonates uncannily with Chomsky’s emphasis on the light of day, sheer coincidence, and ham-fisted bureaucrats to dispel the likelihood of conspiracy.

“’Those who can conspire haven’t got the time; those who do conspire haven’t got the talent,’” Roche concluded. After all, any conspiracy would have been forcefully pursued by former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, Roche assures. “[T]he conspiracy theory may be gospel to ‘a priesthood of marginal paranoids,’” but “it is also ‘an assault on the sanity of American society, and I believe in its fundamental sanity.’”[12]

What almost goes without saying is that today’s finely tuned propaganda is presented under the guise of knowledge and expertise. Public opinion experts recognize how the spokesperson’s identification with and understanding of the target audience typically maximizes the message’s impact. The CIA recognized such subtleties early on, not only in its crafting of the “conspiracy theorist” smear, but also in utilizing highly credible figures to sow disinformation. This is precisely why it apparently deployed recognized Warren Commission critic Edward Jay Epstein to further discredit District Attorney Garrison’s JFK assassination investigation.

After having developed a relationship with CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton, Epstein offered his services to the Garrison inquiry then left to write a lengthy and obliquely defamatory critique of Garrison and his methods for the New Yorker. “A subsequent CIA dispatch to chiefs of Stations worldwide,” author William Davy observes, “cautioned against attacking Garrison personally but provided them with Epstein’s article instead. The dispatch, which included a copy of the New Yorker article, instructed the Chiefs to ‘use the article to brief interested contacts.’”[13]

In a similar manner Chomsky’s activist credentials provide him with an advantage that some early Warren Commission defenders clearly lacked, adding the dimension of credibility that has become commonplace to maintain the status quo and the multitude of noble lies upon which it rests. Fifty years on, with the political capital accumulated through his combined scholarship and activist veneer, Chomsky has become an invaluable resource, capable of regularly assuring a broad and influential number of politically adept individuals that the intricate causes and objectives of deep events such as JFK’s murder and September 11 have no historical or political relevance. Indeed, if such an effective propaganda asset did not exist, they would have to be created or otherwise acquired for such crimes to be securely placed beyond the boundaries of acceptable exchange.


[1] “Noam Chomsky Slams 9/11 Truther,”, November 26, 2013.

[2] “Chomsky Dismisses 911 Conspiracy Theories as Dubious,”, December 13, 2006. For an insightful analysis on the relationship between Chomsky, “conspiracy theory,” 1035-960 and related concerns, see James Corbett, “The ‘C’ Word,”, July 13, 2008. See also Barrie Zwicker’s discussion of Chomsky in Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11, Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

[3] “A Selection of Chomsky’s Posts,”, n.d.

[4] E. Martin Schotz, History Will Not Absolve Us: Orwellian Control, Public Denial, and the Murder of John F. Kennedy, Brookline MA: Kurtz, Ulmer & DeLucia, 1996, 251..

[5] “CIA Dispatch, ‘Countering Criticism of the Warren Report,’” April 1, 1967, in Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK, James H. Fetzer, Editor, Chicago: Catfeet Press, 1998, 444-447.  Document available at Lance deHaven-Smith traces the derogatory use of the “conspiracy theory” term roughly to 1035-960. Conspiracy Theory in America (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2013).

[6] “CIA Dispatch, ‘Countering Criticism of the Warren Report.’”

[7] Carl Bernstein, “The CIA and the Media, Rolling Stone, October 20, 1977. Available at

[8] See, for example, “Any Number Can Play,” Newsweek, November 7, 1966, 37-38; “Into the Archives,” Time, November 11, 1968, 45; “The Mythmakers,” Time, November 11, 1966, 45; “The Missing Link,” Newsweek,” November 14, 1966, 30-31.

[9] “The Phantasmagoria,” Time, November 25, 1966, 42.

[10] “The Mystery Makers,” Time, December 22, 1967, 27.

[11] Ibid.

[12] “Inconceivable Connivance,” Time, January 12, 1968, 24.

[13] William Davy, Let Justice Be Done: New Light on the Jim Garrison Investigation, Reston VA: Jordan Publishing, 1999, 142.

Leave a Reply

311 thought on “Propaganda Assets Old and New”
  1. Peter Dale Scott has noted Chomsky’s position and is a bit perplexed by it. According to Professor Scott, Chomsky was very helpful in getting some of Scott’s “conspiratorial” writing published, but after publication was quite dismissive of it.

    Though it has been some years since I read Professor Scott’s comment on Chomsky, I believe it was he who related the anti-conspiracy mindset to the Hegelian, more specifically, the Marxist view of history. In that worldview, history is an impersonal force that moves as it may move. Disjunctions or interventions do not happen. But if they do happen they are not caused by great actors on the historical stage, but by petty acts that may rearrange the furniture a little bit but not change history by main force.

    If John Kennedy was killed by a lone nut, well history continues on as it did before. If, however, John Kennedy was killed by a secret team or through forces of the deep state, Hegelian or Marxian history has gone awry.

    If 9-11 happened because of 19 lone nuts who couldn’t fly, it was a major event but history continues on as it did before. If, however, 9-11 was a staged event, ‘scripted in Hollywood’ as was my first reaction on that morning, once again history has gone awry.

    Look among those who should be acknowledging 9-11 truth but who do not do so. In most cases you’ll find someone with a strong background in Hegelian and Marxist historicism.

    1. Along the lines of the inexorable yet magnificent unfolding of world history, consider that most academic disciplines and the overall university model were based on the German prototype at the turn of the century. This set the foundation for what was to be taught and the nature of instruction in American secondary schools. For example, consider the American Historical Association’s precepts for “The Study of History in Schools,”

      Doubtless teachers of history in this country can not follow the example of German teachers in all respects. The German believes that, until the boy reaches the university, he has no judgment to be appealed to, and no great reasoning faculty to be developed; that it is his business, until eighteen or nineteen years of age, to absorb, not to argue or discuss. He is not expected to ask questions; he is expected to do what he is told. Such, however, is not the system for making American citizens, and such is not the atmosphere in which the American boy or girl should live. Nor can it be said that under our present conditions the teacher of history should attempt to give instruction to secondary pupils without the help of a text.

    2. Macon, that’s an angle I never saw before, but it rings true. I’ll try and use that perspective a bit more to explain what seems the dominant culture of excusing the actions of “great historical figures” who were “on the right side of history.” Even if Chomsky seems countercultural, it may well be that he is simply more rigorous in applying Marxist Hegelian doctrine than mere popular exponents of history who are but softly leftist.

      Where I wonder does this fit in with Fukuyama’s “end of history”?

      Or with Zinn’s “Peoples’ History of the United States”?

      Anyway, I’ve always found Chomsky to be rather creepy, playing his glass bead game up in the thin atmosphere when it comes to politics. His theory about language acquisition might be more valid than his historical beliefs.

    3. To me, it appears the men and women who come out of the Eastern Establishment universities have far too much clout in American public life–education and politics being of particular need to examine. Their influence runs throughout our history with swings from right to left
      coming full circle in neoliberalism, which is actually a modified term for
      old hard-core economic fascism under a new guise. (We can recognize it as Globalization.)

      Chomsky is of that ilk and knows where to place his bets. His lot is too comfortable to risk at his advanced age. I also thought Howard Zinn’s elaboration on ‘good wars’ was a product more predicated on pleasing his fan base than on sound logic. Perhaps he was just dancing around certain politically incorrect terms which might incite the left (or far-right), he as an intellectual would eschew. Also, his citing the Civil War as one that was preventable, for example, left me shaking my head. The issue of slavery would have worked itself out peacefully? Just a little more time? Did he examine the cost to Black men and women or make some academic, high-sounding deduction? The life slaves lived was not in the abstract.

      Just asking: why do we sometime take away so many questionable observations and call them epiphanies?

      1. ” The issue of slavery would have worked itself out peacefully? Just a little more time?”

        It did exactly that in Every. Single. Other. Country. In. The. World. (Outside of Arabia).

        What I want to know is, what made the Christians of the American South unique in that they were somehow immune to the slavery-irradicating virus every other country caught? Or better stated, who in their right mind could think that the Christians of the American South were uniquely evil in a world saturated with evil, and would (or could) resist the social tide sweeping the world–forever?

        1. Patrick: note a competent scholar would first understand meaningless of subjectivist “evil”–which couldn’t exist in an objective, determinist reality. As I understand, the lucrative cotton trade made slavery still quite profitable in American south of the time.

        2. ———————————–
          Thre are still 27 million people in the world classified as slaves. It may have ended as an institution with government sanctions but the practice went underground in many cases and is simply whitewashed across the board in others. Poor pay, unhealthly living conditions, lack of redress imposed on labor throughtout the industrialized world constitutes slavery in many circumstances..

          One of my personal causes is the way women are still treated with their futures marginalized; in many societies
          they are little more than married prostitutes and brood mares. They have no self determination and laws are skewed to favor male members.

          So I suppose ‘slavery’ is a relative term. As for US Southern plantation notions of right and wrong–pragmatic economics, as usual, trumped Christian values. Nothing new there. They lacked what we now call good old Yankee ingenuity–or ‘backward’, another descriptive term.

      2. I find it hard to be dispassionate about slavery. It was a great evil acting perversely in the lives of other human beings, who, for the convenience of the slave-owners, were defined as less than human. When they were no longer classified as slaves (though it has been documented – particularly by workers on WPA during the FDR administration – long after abolition), then it was necessary to keep them down, justifiable in the minds of their oppressors as mere demographic defense. From the point of view of the person experiencing it, slavery was always evil. As were concentration camps. Who is going to talk about gradualism where that was concerned?

        1. The problem with the slave system in America is that it was in many ways unique. It was not chosen by the colonists; the colonies were corporate entities, chartered by the King and financed by men in London’s City. It is those City investors who decided to introduce African slavery in the colonies.

          The colonies became dependent on the institution; a century and a half later, when we broke away from Britain, families and industries had been dependent on it for many generations. Slaves were extremely valuable, essentially worth what a new combine costs for today’s farmer; thus, for most slave owners most of their net worth was tied up in their farm help.

          As the Northern states (they were called “the East” in those days) gradually weaned themselves off of dependence on slaves, Southern slaveholders became increasingly dependent on loans from British banks. Most were cash poor on a day-to-day basis, and always going deeper into debt to maintain operations. This is why many of the larger plantation owners found it very difficult to manumit their slaves: they were too far in debt.

          That said, it must be kept in mind that slavery was dying out at the time the Constitution was written. It was economically ruinous for a small farmer to take care of entire families from cradle to grave; in contrast, Northern businesses paid new immigrants very little and had no responsibility with respect to their families.

          What rescued the institution was the invention in 1794 of the cotton gin, which for the first time made large scale production of cotton possible. Meanwhile, Jefferson had betrayed his principles by purchasing what was then known as the Southwest from Napoleon. A large swath of what became the states of Alabama and Mississippi is known as the “black belt”: very rich, loamy, black soil and very flat land–perfect for large cotton operations. The only problem was that people already lived there: chiefly the Chocktaw, one of the “civilized tribes,” who were very eager to adapt to European norms.

          The pressure to take that land was intense, and the betrayal of that people one of the saddest (and largely unknown) stories in American history. Once they were finally driven across the Mississippi River, the largest migration in history took place, as the failing slave owners of the Southeast took their black slaves to the new lands, giving fantastic new life to the institution of slavery.

          How could this tragedy have been avoided? Eli Whitney’s invention could not be un-invented. The greed and desperation of the slaveowners could not have been stopped. It was a matter of survival for them, and the possibility that they might free themselves from indebtedness (that rarely happened).

          It is all because the antifederalists failed to stop the overthrow of the United States’ government in 1887. If we remained under the Articles of Confederation, there would have been no Louisiana Purchase; France got along nicely with the Chocktaw, and they would not have been removed from their lands. The problem of the economic inefficiency of slavery would have had to be dealt with in the Southeastern states, and the solution to the problem would not have been to vastly expand it.

          Alas, the antifederalists failed, and the Indians were destroyed, and slavery became vastly more entrenched.

          How the Southern states would have joined the rest of the world in eliminating chattel slavery will never be known, because Lee lost Lincoln’s war.

        2. Thank you Patrick for that detailed mind expanding account with added dimensions that my history classes failed to explain.

        3. Just a typo Patrick, but don’t you mean 1787 (in which the antifederalists failed)?

          Also, it seems that Andrew Jackson betrayed the very tribe that came to his aid at the Battle of New Orleans, the Cherokee, when he (for no doubt political reasons to secure his “base”) signed on to the Trail of Tears, freeing up for white settlement what we call “the Deep South”. Whether or not this was his original intent, I am sure he knew political expediency when he saw it.

        4. Also, isn’t “Lee lost Lincoln’s War” more like “Jefferson Davis lost Lincoln’s War” and “Lee surrendered to Grant”? After all, Lee was no Caesar, quite the contrary. More like a Washington, but with less political ambition.

          We can see playing out today what secession means in geopolitical terms, even if orchestrated by great powers a few years before as with Ukraine. You can see that the dominant power finds itself insecure what that happens, and still feels a stake in the outcome of decisions taken by the lesser one. I think that would have prevailed with the North and South. The North was industrialized AND it was also set up to have raw materials from the Midwest. It had the coal, steel, even foodstuffs when the Midwest got going. The South had not yet taken that direction and was bound to lose a contest of arms. If it had worked out an earlier “color revolution” or something, it would still be in the sphere of influence of the North, simply because the North was more powerful in every way.

        5. The Civil War and its complexities never cease to amaze me. Given the country we became(pre 911), would anyone wish for a different outcome?

        6. fv: thanks for that.

          musings: Indeed, a typo. I even reread that post, and missed it. This is easy to do. You might notice that you can now click on my name, taking you to the web site of my new book. It’s very new; I just received the first copy, and was reading it in printed form for the first time over the weekend: I found two obvious typos, even though I and numerous others had pored over the text countless times. Sometimes the most obvious things are the least easy to see.

          Also, although you are quite correct, I could not resist saying “Lee lost Lincoln’s War.” It was too delightful an alliteration, when it popped into my mind, to let go to waste. Poetic license.

          As for secession and Ukraine, in Spengler’s most recent comment on the subject, he says this: “Ukraine isn’t a country: it’s a Frankenstein monster composed of pieces of dead empires, stitched together by Stalin.” (

          The Russian parts of Ukraine, Spengler has long argued, cannot be allowed to leave Mother Russia’s sphere, because Russia refuses to produce children, and Putin knows how bad the demographic problem is. Any and all Russians in the near abroad must be drawn back in, if the nation is to survive. The morons running America seemingly have no notion of the true stakes.

          And of course, you are quite right about the industrial challenge the South would have faced, were Lincoln to have lost the war, and the Confederacy to actually attempt to be a viable country. I lived in Pittsburgh for a couple of years. The steel mills were already long closed by then, but they still sat as rusting hulks on the riverside. It was then that I learned that iron wad mined in Minnesota, floated through the great lakes, turned into steel in Pittsburgh (with the help of West Virginia coal), and floated back a ways to Detroit to turn into cars.

          How would the mint julep crowd on the veranda down South have competed with THAT?

        7. Rich, I do wish it had gone differently. Ideally, Lincoln would have had to give up, and allowed the status quo ante to be restored. The Plains Indians would have been allowed to survive; we would not have stolen Cuba from Spain (Cuba had been just as much a part of Spain as Hawaii is to us, only for 400 years–we have only been in this country for 400 years); we would not have murdered all those Philippinos; we would not have gone to Europe to help prolong the First World War; there would be no income tax, no Federal Reserve, and the Senate would still represent the states.

          The world would, in other words, be a far better place.

        8. I agree a more fragmented America would have been less likely to participate in WW1, and The Spanish American War. But being fragmented, less of the continent would have been under the Constitution anyway, so what the Senate would actually represent after a different conclusion is hard to say. Bankers are bankers, just like gun control, they would endlessly be trying to foist a central bank on whatever pieces remained after the war. I also think the Indians were doomed once relocation began. I will have to study the subject more to see where you are coming from.

        9. There is a fantastic book called Empire of the Summer Moon: Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches, the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American History. I recommend it.

          These people, the Indians, stood in the way of Lincoln’s law firm clients: the Northeastern railroad barons. By the time of the war against the South the Chocktaws had long since been removed to the lands across the Mississippi. But the Plains tribes were fighting back against White expansion westward.

          Say what you want about America’s founding, and the replacement of the Indians along the Atlantic coast. It’s a story that has been told in every corner of the world, over and over again. But we were Christians, here, and while what we did to the Chocktaws and Cherokees, among others east of the Mississippi, is unconscionable, although inevitable (the Louisiana Purchase made it inevitable), what we did to the Plains Indians was not inevitable, and it should not have been done. White people did not have any justification, in any way, for what was done to them. It was a crime. An unspeakable crime.

        10. Delusionary, Hubristic “Good” Foremost Destroyer Of TRUTH, Reason, Justice, Civilization

          “…[W]hat we did to the Plains Indians was not inevitable, and it should not have been done. White people did not have any justification, in any way, for what was done to them. It was a crime. An unspeakable crime.”

          * * * * * * * * *

          “We”?–ho ho oho–speak for urself, eh? And it wasn’t “white people” who did it (or anything) to the poor Plains Indians, but rather, the very same interests at the top who mass-murdered the white folk of the American South, the ensuing campaign against Indians simply the next logical imperialist step–it was indubitably, absolutely inevitable.

          American age of imperialist expansion got tremendous start w. the “Civil” war; after the Indian extermination, the Spanish-American war mere next logical step, WWI and League-of-Nations world-dictatorship right after it, then WWII consolidation, now AGENDA-21 depopulation genocide all predictable steps in the great satanist game.

          And WHAT is the great (satanic) destroyer of TRUTH (Christ)?–that noble lie u champion so desperately, Mr. Patrick, the gross, hubristic, Pharisaist “good-evil” delusion/fallacy/heresy (Pelagianism).

  2. Great essay.

    Chomsky and his ilk (and there are plenty), have done a great deal of damage to this country due to their sheer control of large segments of the public conversation the outright lies, but largely due to lies of omission. He’s clearly got allegiances to higher ups, which is ironic given how he likes to portray himself.

    More importantly, Chomsky is a clown if he doesn’t publicly question 9/11; a court jester, without the humor (extremely tedious to listen to, boring at best). But I digress from my reason for posting and that is to proclaim that Chomsky is a traitor to this country and to humanity; a sell-out to the elites (or a certain segment of them, quite possibly). Think what you will. He needs to go to jail (and I’m feeling generous tonight) along with the perpetrators of nine one one. Comrades? The possibility is there.

    1. Jailed for what? Disagreeing? It’s a strange fact of public discourse that there will always be some whose opinions on certain issues will seem odd and out of tune with everything else that person may stand for, but that’s life and the unpredictability of human behavior. Amy Goodman is another. And Chris Hedges another. Both dismiss (or seem to) the conspiracy theory aspect of 9/11, the possibility that this event may have been an inside job. James Corbett’s short video (less than 5 minutes) makes minced meat of the government’s position and it would be most interesting to get Mr. Chomsky to take a look at that video and critique it. But probably we must leave him with his myopia and accept that we’ll never understand how or why he reasons as he does on this subject. For a long time, especially during the Bush years, I think, Chomsky was rarely heard from. It may be that he is enjoying his return to the limelight and would prefer not to upset the applecart with something so tendentious as using his position as the Number One Public Intellectual to take a stand on a subject that, sadly enough, is still shrouded in untruth among many who consider themselves part of America’s intellectual class. Howard Zinn, as I recall, allowed that 9/11 was probably a false flag event, but then added that it would be impossible to prove it, so best not waste one’s time. However, the destruction of civil liberties and Constitutional safeguards in the wake of 9/11 makes that, position increasingly untenable. If we’re going to save our country from complete ruin, laying bare the truth of 9/11 becomes first order business.

      1. Jailed for what?–how about conspiracy for dis-information and construction of the noble-lie(s) whence “good” and security of Israel, for example, justifies such as 9/11 and other events, like Sandy Hook and Boston Marathon bombing.

        Thus the empire-of-lies produces present culture-of-death, ObongoCare death-panels and AGENDA-21 “population-reduction” genocide.

        Noble lie of “good” is worst enemy of TRUTH.

  3. Very well done. Thank you. On a similar vein, I recently emailed the Chair Professor (William McKeen) at the Boston University School of Journalism requesting evidence of real journalism regarding MSM promoted illusory false flags. He simply cited his student’s work on the 2013 Boston Marathon. You will find this on their website merrily towing the official line. “We’re proud of their work”, he wrote.

    BU represents another sickening example of teaching the continued illness in American MSM journalism. I find it further disturbing that BU assigned several dozen students to the Marathon….is this evidence of prior knowledge?

    1. Whether or not it is evidence of prior knowledge to assign several students to the Marathon, I find it interesting that none of them questioned the official story. None of them, that is, who came to light. But there are photos from all angles of the stage set and its tricks. Wonder who recorded those so that we can see just how it was done. We know that isolated bits of those documentations were used to promote the official story. But when taken as a whole they refute it. Curious to know how the unedited versions got into the mainstream.

      There are alternative explanations:
      1) They thought it appeared so genuine it would not undermine belief.

      2) Since it is out there, careful analysis can undermine the “captioning” of the objective event as filmed and photographed.


      1) People who were not official photographers and videographers appeared nevertheless to be so, blending in with “A” above.


      1) The “B” videographers, figuring out that they had what they had, went viral to perform a valuable service to history.

      1. Yes musings: Alex Jones ( has this hang-up on Sandy Hook, he insisting we’re up against EVILLLLLLLL, hence that at least some kids or people had to have gotten killed. Alex adds that “he knows these people.”

        But people like me try to tell him, no, when u consider the sort of half-baked, trendy-types, and metro-sexuals involved, like the crisis-actors, they had to think and have been told that no one would really be hurt–and no one was hurt, as we can be sure. For such trendy-types would only have gone along in the beginning if they were assured no one was really gonna be hurt.

        Boston then was another of these totally fake, Sandy Hook -like productions, but this time, some of the “trendy” -types decided they wouldn’t go along. Maybe some of them resented the gross, putrid lock-down of the entire city that took place, cops & soldiers yelling at and pushing the poor folks, invading their premises without warrants, etc.

        After all, Boston was where it all began back in 1775 or so.

        People were already looking at Sandy Hook event w. close scrutiny even as Boston event was going down.

      2. If there are any students on this wavelength please speak up. Memoryhole 101 will not fail you for independent thought, educating your peers and discussing truth.

        1. Just walked down Boylston St., by the hole-in-the-wall joint called Forum. I had avoided that neighborhood for some time, but I made some observations. There is only one tree replaced (it was never damaged). Other trees are very close to it, pristine. The public has been led to believe that the area in front of the building and on the sidewalk was much larger than it really was. Things are just jammed together. There is some kind of fakery associated with the size of the area – don’t know how. Otherwise, real bombs would have taken out all kinds of irreplaceable facades on the buildings in the area.

          The idea that there is silence on this by all the pundits is kinda chilling.

          The sidewalk there consists of granite squares. None of it appears damaged. It may be that we have been shown pictures of replacements, but that does not ring true. It’s all been smoke and mirrors.

        2. P.s. – Nobody would have wandered casually by there from Fenway after a game. It’s a huge long way away and plenty of sports bars are right around Fenway. Again, the “optics” are important. They have been distorted.

        3. Thank you musings for your observations….How about any of the Criminal Justice Degree students at Boston University; what does your training teach us about musings observations of lack of flying projectile debris damage. We will accept contributions from Boston Strong T-Shirt owners.

  4. Truth And Freedom Destroyed By Conspiracy Of Noble Lies And “Good”

    Note “conspiracy theory” is integral to Western civilization fm New Test. and the conspiracy to murder TRUTH (Christ). Consp. theory was integral and detailed part of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.

    Thus people are subjected to psy-ops, and then specifically the BIG-LIE technique which requires such as Chomsky and others posing as experts, sages, and guru-like sooths-sayers to ridicule any dissidents.

    Don’t forget Pres. Andrew Jackson’s great campaign to destroy that nest of conspirators behind the second Bank of the US, and how the Bank worked so sedulously to destroy Jackson.

    And before Jackson there was Jefferson vs. Hamilton and Supreme ct. Chief Justice John Marshall who tortured the Constitution to justify the Bank in McCulloch vs. Maryland decision of 1819.

    Thus conspiracy and it’s mental empire-of-lies grows and comes to dominate like a God, conspiracy only maturing when it takes control of the money-supply, literally printing-up, and now digitalizing, practically all it needs to finance ANY project, war, deed, assassination, etc., the empire progressing till it falls in a heap of its own weight, impossible to going any further, even the top masterminds now betraying one another–but the people much decimated and reduced.

    So conspiracy, lies, and psychopathology are necessarily things to be understood as basic conditions of human existence–it begins w. the “noble lie” of Plato and nowadays, Leo Strauss, guru of the neo-cons, and was part of the original problem for Adam and Eve who were told to beware the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil–ck

    If u notice, all the conspiracies and wars are for the purpose of “good”–that was why US was attacked on 9/11, jealous moooozlims. And it’s “good” to insure our “security” now by means of torture, the police-state, preventive wars, and drone-killings.

    Thus Christian TRUTH, the greatest virtue, only way to God (Gosp. JOHN 14:6), is destroyed by conspiracy and noble-lies of “good” and Pharisaic virtue. Chomsky–isn’t he related to the Pharisees?

  5. Prof. Tracy writes at the end, “Indeed, if such an effective propaganda asset did not exist, they would have to be created or otherwise acquired for such crimes to be securely placed beyond the boundaries of acceptable exchange.”

    Exactly, and how better to doing this (creation of “prop. assets”) than by controlling the money and banking by which then to being able to spend nearly any amount to controlling the press, etc.?

  6. Your papers, please…

    ‘….More than anything else, the university (colleges), the higher education system, whether it be in the US, Canada, or anywhere else
    in the world, teaches obedience to, deference toward, and participation in, psychopathy.

    The lengthy studies students make and are given, all the paperwork they write and do, are all part of a deep indoctrination process that begins in childhood.

    All the -isms, including feminism, all of the so-called advanced studies are a part of this….’

    From a comment I made at this morning, where we discuss psychopathy, frequently.

    Ned Lud

  7. Excellent analysis. However, in this sentence:

    “Sparrow wrote an 18,000-word commendation of critics…”

    I think you mean “condemnation,” not “commendation,” eh?

  8. Those who do not know a lot about physics, not as much as Chomsky does, may be put off by saying anything. There develops a priesthood around science and expertise. This allows “stage magic” to work to the benefit of certain forces. But you can also eliminate that which is impossible, without having much expertise. You need not explain the physics of how it was done, so much as to assert that the official explanation was an impossibility. It’s Houdini’s elephant in the room trick that any sane person can understand was an impossible trick as stated.
    In this way, lacking all the academic credentials, understanding of the real world is still possible for ordinary people. It is the basis of assuming there should even be a democracy. If you lack that sense that there is such a thing as common sense or Common Sense, if you trade on your special mathematical skill and expertise for your status, then you may view the ordinary person with ill-disguised contempt. If such a person can ignore us, we can equally well choose to ignore him. Which is what I do.

    1. “You need not explain the physics of how it was done, so much as to assert that the official explanation was an impossibility.”


      Chomsky’s entire response is an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. His argument assumes that there is a pristine, uncorrupted “scientific process,” an orderly, gradual vetting of contrary views, where all the “authorities” are sage wisemen who study carefully the thinking of people who attempt to demonstrate that all of that is not true, and then, stroking their scholarly beards, are willing to conclude that yes, indeed, the system is entirely corrupt. He sounds so reasonable, in his boring delivery, but if you think about what he’s saying, he’s obviously lying.

      Popular Mechanics just made up out of whole cloth a ridiculous, nonsensical model of how the Towers were brought down. They proved the Purdue University is utterly corrupt by producing a cartoon of how planes could have penetrated the buildings and produced the end results thereby–but leaving out all the structural facts of the architecture that their gullible readers/viewers had no idea existed.

      Then, the official story proceeded to trumpet the fact that Popular Mechanics and Purdue “proved” the official story scientifically, over and over again.

      It’s all propaganda, this “peer review” business, when the secret government creates fake events to shape the police state future, and men & women who sell their souls to help further the enslavement process are beneath contempt. But in these debased times, when money and reputation have replaced virtue in cultural esteem, I guess I should just get used to it.

      1. I liked your images here, and the reminder of how authority is created (between Purdue and Popular Mechanics). In Plato’s Republic, the wise philosophers at the top of society would dictate reality to us. It morphed into religious authority and came out the other end of the cow as scientific authority when the true goal of science should be constant critique and experimentation.

        On the subject of simplifying perception and showing it is within the scope of the common person, I think Feynman’s demonstration of O-ring failure on the Challenger by dropping a rubber band into ice water was the sort of thing we ought to go for. These “childish” explanations have a power sometimes which leave the others behind. Of course Feynman was invited to the table based on his Nobel prize, but I think that he was one person who kept his inner child hard at work on the problems. Not to make him some kind of authority figure (though people have tried).

        1. I am very angry with Richard Feynman, musings, for dying so young. He is the model scientist: fearless, honest, and absolutely disinterested in fame or money. His popular autobiographies make me ask why he is so unique in this regard.

          He was very critical of the Challenger findings, so much so that they relegated his remarks to an appendix. He did not say, but I assume great pressure was brought to bear, which he resisted.

    2. Chomsky is a professor of “Linguistics”. This is but one problem with all this deference to alleged “expertise”. Judy Wood, on the other hand, has a PhD in materials properties and is a civil engineer.

      Now, not to violate my own rule about being in thrall to “experts”, I would wager that Dr. Wood knows a bit more about “physics” than Dr. Chomsky.

      Unfortunately, in this country (and maybe others), we are conditioned to accept whatever anyone with a “Dr.” in front of their name says on any topic whatsoever. This is a conditioned response.

      Actually, the fact that Chomsky spends an inordinate amount of time writing about politics and psychology is rather puzzling. He’s certainly free to do that but I wouldn’t place any more credibility in what he says than anyone else.

      What this is about (in my opinion), is just another aspect of controlling knowledge and dialog. Just like the MSM trots out “experts” who aren’t on a daily basis to support whatever they’re selling, the universities do their share of controlling the limits of what is deemed “acceptable” discourse.

      It is just another form of control. People don’t go to university anymore to help them become better thinkers. They go there to help them land jobs. They think that if they have a diploma they will make more money. To get a diploma means that you do not argue with what you are told is “acceptable” and normal.

      I have no problem with anyone saying virtually anything. I don’t have to agree with them. I admit to being frustrated by people’s fascination with titles. It might be less frustrating if they actually knew what the titles represented. Even with that understanding it doesn’t mean that the one with the title is always “correct”.

  9. As usual, Professor Tracy, makes excellent points based on facts that can not be denied if one has an ounce of critical thinking brain cells. Chomsky, has long been part of the “controlled opposition’ and knows full well what really is going on. He is gutless; content in sitting in his office at MIT posing as an intellectual…pseudo, in my opinion.

    There are others, however, that are unknowingly simply blinded by the elephants in the living room because of cognitive dissonance. The truth is too horrific to accept for them.

    Fran Shue has written a very insightful 3-part essay explaining “Why Do Good People Become Silent…or Worse…About 9/11?”

    1. Have u observed how food-stamp program has expanded?–up to 50 million now, I understand. Now when u consider the CORP. “welfare,” the no-bid contracts, etc., u begin to realize how many are dependent on big-bro. Then there’s all the folks heavily in debt. So people are encouraged by all the various ways to go along w. big-bro.

      Gov. spending just continues to increase, along w. the debt. Thus the conditions for the BIG-LIE technique are evermore optimal, (a) psychopaths lying deliberately, (b) the mass-propaganda machine bleating incessantly, (c) the evermore dependent people succeeding in fooling themselves in a way similar to (d) the famous “Stockholm syndrome,” people going along, dissidents discouraged, even persecuted–as we see “whistle-blowers” are prosecuted.

      1. Yes, this economic meltdown with banks and mortgages I believe was allowed to happen through greed of the banksters and the only solution is to get your “government” refinancing through HAARP etc. What about the 8 or so banksters that deciding to end it all recently between January 28th and January 31st? What is happening? What is that forcasting?

        1. Thanks for ur comments–I really think my “BIG-LIE” theme is otherwise under-rated for importance in understanding Sandy Hook and the other incidents entailing BLATANT lies by gov. and sadistic REFUSAL to let us look at tapes (as of Pentagon strike on 9/11), the people bullied into “going-along” w. the lies, the mass-corp. “news”-media NOT helping.

          Regarding the bankers–“dead men tell no tales,” eh? I wonder when bodies of people associated w. Sandy Hook will start to turn-up–it’s mere matter of time, I think.

    2. Without reading the erudite article, I would say it’s because they’re cowards who prefer to live under the lie. The truth is horrific but only too horrific to accept because it would mean having to take responsibility for their own lives and those of their families.

  10. So basically what you’re saying is that Chomsky is an accomplished liar who gets the desired results and from those results we can reasonably deduce his goals and even a few of his motives.
    So long as people don’t call out and confront pathological liars (and remove them when necessary) they will continue to lie.
    Regarding the infiltration of the CIA, by the 1950’s into major (and regional) newspaper editorial boards etc., it’s rather obvious that the infiltration happened well before then by the agency’s precursor. “News” has always been a game run by the elite.

    1. Larry- Thanks for the videos you put together. I posted a couple of them separately, plus the link to the playlist here This Sandy Hook thread has about 54,000 views already. And that Giles-Rousseau guy really gets me. If this was a real event, then why isn’t he suing the school district for not giving his daughter a key to look the door to her classroom? I also have a problem with those bullet holes in what is supposed to be her car. If those bullet holes really were from 12/14/12 then why does one of them already have rust on it (see 13 secs

      1. Amanda, if I had to guess (and I do!), I’d say that the car sat in the police impound lot a while before it was taken to the school as a prop.

        In terms of the bullet holes being both entry and exit holes in roughly the same area, unless they were using magic JFK ammunition that is pretty hard to explain as well.

        As to “the key”, have you ever heard of a public building, especially a school, that would have locks of a type that required a key to lock them from the inside? How would you get out in a fire?

        Besides that, can you imagine the conversation? “You are too new here to be trusted with a key. Those are reserved for potential “survivors” in the event of invasion”. “I know, it’s a bitter pill to swallow, but you and your students will simply have to remain at the attacker’s mercy until you’ve gained sufficient seniority to be trusted with a key. Besides, you’re Canadian”.

    2. This proposal gives us additional insight into the real purpose behind the Sandy Hook hoax: to keep all crime scene information out of the public’s hands! This is such a dark and frightening prospect I can’t believe it. It will simply legitimate state-sponsored murder.

      1. Yes Sunny! And it started several years ago when Wayne Carver and Connecticut sealed public info on child homicides, if I remember correctly.

        1. No question! And now we see why they had to have actors and a big hoax: in order to push THIS legislation through. Real parents who suffered the real deaths of their children would never stand up like this and agree to such a proposal. The Dark Side needed a crowd of actors for this very press conference.

        2. There is no logical (under ordinary circumstances) reason for this sort of secrecy. Violeta’s comment is interesting. I have had that thought rattling round in the back of my mind.

          When legislation like this is passed it spreads. I used to receive a monthly magazine called “Governing” that had a synopsis of all recent state and local legislation recently passed. They would actually send you the language and you could just fill in the name of your state or town.

          So, when I think about it as a ploy to pass ugly legislation, it would be useful. Just stage events, have actors play the roles of angry constituents, and voila, instant tyranny.

  11. Chomsky sidesteps the real question by defending the Bush administration. Answer: Lets just determine first if the building could fall without some kind of help. He also asks: where are the papers and studies on the physics? My answer is: who in the banker owned press would print them? And how could they do such research when the evidence was all hauled off and melted down before the shock wore off? Of course being an academic god(as can be witnessed by the clapping from the crowd, regardless of his failure to answer the question), Chomsky only accepts evidence that is printed in his language, and in academic journals, because the rest of us are just too stupid to understand what we saw with our own eyes, especially without an advanced degree in physics. Chomsky pretends to operate from a perspective that denies the existence of evil in the world. That is all I need to know about him to draw the conclusion that he is a liar.

    1. Why is “evil” so important?–why isn’t insanity good enough? People do their best. Even the psychopaths who did 9/11 had some purpose which they considered sufficient. Whole problem is “good-evil” is subjective, a means of intimidation and control for kids and dogs. What’s the “lie” about “denying” this phony “good-evil”? Pretending to “good” is basis then for overthrow of truth–always has been. Aren’t u familiar w. the “noble lie” concept of Plato and Leo Strauss?

      1. Yes, it is important to understand the basic fact that when a group of people commit an evil act, they often consider it good or the lesser of two evils. There is no end of rationalization.

        If you ever saw “Wag the Dog”, the Robert de Niro character who eventually commits murder does it to protect the President while working in a job he says he has “to feed the family.” Pretty similar to his earlier work as a young Vito Corleone taking care of his kinfolk.

        Right now if anyone is interested, foreign policy in Crimea is being hammered out for the West by BBC reporters who are eager to characterize as a “military takeover” the actions of some pro-Russian Ukrainians who are guarding an airport in Crimea. The convenient memory hole down which they have dropped the events leading up to this is that a few days before there was an armed coup d’etat that overthrew a pro-Russian elected prime minister who has fled for his life to Putin. I feel that “evil” is an interesting problem when the goal is to weaken someone you think is too big for his britches (Putin) and support some people who are looking more and more like old-time fascists. However one thinks of the merits of either side, the “live’ (and they are not most of them live) broadcasts over BBC mean that journalism is openly and in (almost) real time expressing a pre-formed foreign policy and not being objective at all. How is this “evil”? It will be evil if the entangling alliances which were formed with this region lead to warfare in which the whole world can soon be involved.

        Evil is not just from intent, it is gross negligence which leads to bad outcomes, or decisions which put one on the path to almost certain war (which is in itself the greatest of human evils).

        1. Musings: (a) this by u is just twaddle–there is no “evil” (or “good”) in a determinist universe in accord w. strict cause-effect, no perfectly “free” human will–everyone does best he/she can, period.

          (b) U’re just fear-mongering w. the war bit. ZOG will have to look for a convenient little war sooner or later, when US Dollar begins serious collapse and the natives get even more restless; this present activity is just more jostling for position, I suspect. “War is the health of the state.”

        2. No it isn’t “twaddle”. An evil act is something objective if it has an evil effect. As I said, and I do not forgive and forget as you apparently do, a lot of people have crafted long and extensive self-justifications for what they do. That doesn’t make the act any less evil, destructive, lethal, etc. A few people in the game are simply cynics. Some are Bernie Madoff types who are in it solely for themselves. Some are altruists who are in it for the greater good of some vision they have of the state they desire to further. If you think there is no way to distinguish what is good and evil, then I suppose you think you are “beyond good and evil”. I would then return the compliment and call your BS a load of “twaddle” – but that would be rude.

        3. What’s “evil”?–give a clear criterion–did u know NO ONE in hist. has ever been able to do so? “Evil” is subjective.

          Everyone does best he/she can in serving one’s interest–we’re all sinners, always have been, always will be. People might well be insane, but not evil–as Plato wrote through his character, Socrates, “who would sin willingly?” Don’t have exact ref., sorry.

        4. musings, I take great inspiration from your posts and so would like to challenge you, without sounding as rude as apollonian. What makes you think the Ukrainian nationalists are ‘fascists?’ And you don’t consider the EU ‘fascist?’

          The irony about these so-called ‘neo-nazi fascists’ is that they’re probably funded mostly by the fascists in the EJew.

        5. Sue, Paul Craig Roberts has written a lot about this in recent weeks ( He favors Russia, and knows the history. Certainly, I know very little of it. If he is to be believed, Eastern Ukraine joined the Nazis in fighting the communists in WWII.

          Here is a sample: “To the extent that government exists in post-coup Ukraine, it is laws dictated by gun and threat wielding thugs of the neo-Nazi, Russophobic, ultra-nationalist, right-wing parties. ”

          Another: “The hostility already shown toward the Russian population can be seen in the destruction by Ukrainians of the monument to the Russian troops that drove Hitler’s divisions out of Ukraine during World War 2 and the destruction of the monument to Russian General Kutuzov, whose tactics destroyed Napoleon’s Grand Army and resulted in the fall of Napoleon.

          The question at the moment is whether Washington miscalculated and lost control of the coup to the neo-nazi elements who seem to have taken control from the Washington-paid moderates in Kiev, or whether the Washington neocons have been working with the neo-nazis for years.”

          Spengler, David Goldman, has been arguing at Asia Times Online that the only solution is to cut the baby in half, although he does not mention that half the baby is fascist. He has long argued that Russia’s demographic problem is intractable, and that the only way the nation can survive is to reincorporate the near-abroad, where there are enough Russians to forestall disaster in the near term. I’d call this dispassionate analysis that sees the situation from Russia’s point of view. Roberts, as I said, is very solidly on Russia’s side.

      2. I don’t like the word ‘evil.’ It’s too loaded with fundamentalist fervor, so I never use it, but I know it when I see it. Evil exists. It is very evident in the attached story about a young man with Asberger’s who was victimized and beaten to death by a meth head couple who ‘befriended’ him for his medication. He was an easy target. His aunt reports that he had been doing well, until he became hopelessly despondent and ashamed upon hearing that Adam Lanza had the same condition.

        These two meth heads possessed an evil cunning. Worse still are those who weave false events, and all the rest that rationalize their participation based on some sort of altruism – even though money is usually the real motive.

        Deception always has unknown consequences which crash down on innocent people, like this poor boy.

        1. It took me till I was in my 30’s before I understood that the road to hell is paved with good intentions truly meant hell, as opposed to maybe purgatory (a Catholic expression for some limbo land in between heaven and hell). I didn’t realize that the expression exposes that good intentions are often just rationalizations for evil.

        2. Oh there’s evil all right. I’m no fundamentalist, but that much I know. As they say “the Devil’s most successful trick is convincing people that he doesn’t exist”.

          There is such a thing as “right and wrong”. That’s why we have to be careful when we make choices. Sometimes those are not obvious. But, make no mistake, all our choices tend one way or another.

      3. You contradict yourself. You say evil does not exist, then you say evil is subjective. So is it nonexistent or subjective? You also say evil does not exist, yet you label the 911 conspirators as psychopaths. Or are they just people trying to do their best? You also say we are all sinners, but you don’t believe in evil. How can someone so enlightened believe sin exists, but not evil.

        I stated there was “evil in the world”, which is different than judging someone as evil. If killing people (911) is simply people doing their best, and forwarding their own interests, but not evil, what would you classify as a sin?

        1. Rich: like I say, we’re all sinners (self-interested), following our wills, whatever that may be. But note there’s no perfectly “free” will in determined universe, according to absolute cause-effect. Psychopaths may be insane by some standard, but no one’s evil–which “good-evil” is just for self-righteous, Pharisaics.

    2. Elsevier, the science publisher, put out a volume of essays which were peer reviewed in an expensive edition intended for libraries, questioning the official story of 9-11. But it seems to have passed without comment by even those who insisted on “serious work”. After all, it s so important to make everyone appear to be a habitual conspiracy theorist rather than someone who up until 9/11 was working as an engineer, physicist or mathematician. Many of the skeptics had the advantage not being on the US government grant dependency cycle, but were often Canadian.

      1. I alluded on here once to a person of highest genius scientist I know. He told me that at a certain point in his career, the government asked him and his peers to sign away basically every aspect of their privacy. Some signed and are now part of the rich, some, like my friend, refused and are thus banished from the establishment. They have opinions which differ from the party line but no platform in which to expound them. Sadly, most of the sheeple are still sipping the priesthood’s cocktail of blessed wine and psychopharmaceuticals. Although as time goes on, fewer seem to remain so gullible and lulled. I heard from a friend who just turned 30 that most of the people she knows in the South don’t believe Sandy Hook was real. So perhaps the greater tragedy is that no one seems to care either way. The average middle class white person just keeps taking their happy pills, going to work and praying to the talmudvision.

  12. A side not to my fellow truthers. PLEASE stop linking/referencing Alex Jones and Info Wars on this blog. Many truthers believe this guy is a fraud. I know he is a main reason why many non-believers stay non-believers. They see this Alex Jones clown and think he represents us. Not even close.

    Maybe he is a fraud, maybe not. But for the sake of new readers, PLEASE leave him out of the discussion. He is only a distraction from the pinpoint accuracy we get from Dr. Tracy.

    Thank you for understanding.

    1. Tracy certainly has his virtues, but so does dear old Alex Jones ( who deserves a listen–esp. when endorsed as he is (in negative fashion, perhaps) by certain geniuses, ho ho ho.

      1. Anybody who touts Alex Jones as a leader of the truth movement is a fool or a shill. Do you really think this clown is the person who can convince folks to take the red pill, to wake up from their life-long brainwashing.

        I want one person on this site, other than apollo, to say that he or she stands behind Alex Jones. Or, for that matter, any person who even refers people to his site.

        Alex Jones at his best:

        1. Like any skeptic I’ve heard of this person but my rule is, if he’s on talmudvision, it’s not truth he’s dispensing.

        2. Sue: Alex is NOT on Talmudvision; he’s tight w. Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Jesse Ventura, though he’s careful, as they all are, to touching the Jew/Zionist subject. ALL his sponsors are Jews who’ve made him rich, so he won’t go there. But otherwise, he’s strict libertarian, for gun rights, against illegal immigration, etc.

        3. Sue, Apollo… is right, he isn’t on “talmudvision” but he is “Talmudic”.

        4. apollonian says:

          February 28, 2014 at 6:39 pm

          Sue: Alex is NOT on Talmudvision; he’s tight w. Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Jesse Ventura, though he’s careful, as they all are, to touching the Jew/Zionist subject. ALL his sponsors are Jews who’ve made him rich, so he won’t go there. But otherwise, he’s strict libertarian, for gun rights, against illegal immigration, etc.

          You can only serve one master.

          and as someone said earlier….

          You can’t criticize those who control you.

          and as someone else said earlier, but I’ll put it in a question…

          Who runs the Federal Reserve?

        5. “Who runs the Federal Reserve?”

          That’s easy. The Fed is a cartel, made up of the largest banks. It was created by the largest banks, and holds a monopoly on the creation of money in the United States. This has never changed. Today, the top dog is the same as it was 100 years ago, when the cartel was chartered by the craven, tyrannical Congress: JP Morgan (although Pierpont is obviously dead, Jamie Dimon is an excellent stand-in.

        6. Violeta is quite right, far as she goes. Fed is private organization, corp., owned and run by top commercial banks. JP Morgan was mere errand-boy for Rothschilds of London, according to G.E. Griffin in “Creature From Jekyll Island” (see his site at

          These top commercial banks which own Fed were (some may have changed their names) N.M. Rothschild of London, Lazard Bro.s of Paris, France (French Rothschilds), Moses Seif Israel of Milan, Italy, Goldman Sachs, Kuhn Loeb & Co.–these all having 12% ownership shares, Rockefeller having about a 5% interest at the time, 1913.

          Effective management of Fed policy is now carried out by such as Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), instituted in early 20s, Trilateralists (about 1970), and Bilderbergers (since at least 1954) who have controlled things since inception of Fed.

        7. “–these all having 12% ownership shares, Rockefeller having about a 5% interest at the time, 1913.

          Effective management of Fed policy is now carried out by such as Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), instituted in early 20s, Trilateralists (about 1970), and Bilderbergers (since at least 1954)”

          Fascinating. “12%.” “About 5%.” Please provide us with your documentation. How do you have this amazing insight? I’ve never encountered anything approaching this level of detail of the internal ownership of the Fed, and I’ve been researching it for more than 20 years.

          Also, please provide your documentation that “Effective management of Fed policy is now carried out” by these three organizations. I particularly like the word “now,” which implies it was different prior. How do you know this? Please, nothing general. You have very specific insights, very detailed information about names and dates. That’s what I’m asking for: how do you know these specific things?

          Also, I’m afraid, if your reply is perfectly detailed, containing precisely the information I’m requesting of you, I must warn: at the first “u” or “ur” I will stop reading, and perhaps miss the best treasure trove of amazing insight I ever was privileged to be given. So be a scholar, and write in English, not gibberish.

        8. Ho ho ho hoo ho. Get this straight, u pathetic grey-headed, frizzy-haired chump: I couldn’t care less what u read or don’t read and why or why not–u got it?

          U’ve “never encountered…”?–really?–shows what a miserable scholar u really are, eh? Ho ho ho ho ho

          And note, if u could read and understand English, I actually did give u an outstanding ref., that of G.E. Griffin, ho ho ho ho.

          A rank beginner (for scholarship and research) like urself could start w.

          Just go down the list. I recommend the one titled, “•Federal Reserve Banking System Alex Jones’ Infowars:…,” about 5th down. The one just before it, 4th, is also good. Ho hoo hooho ho ho

        9. Fish-for-brains: what u get is what it is for the ref. info required–did u even bother to ck the links? Ho ho ho ho ho

        10. –Or u could use the startpage and then type-in: ownership of US Federal Reserve Bank, and u get same thing.

        11. so it seems that article got that from jim marrs, who got it fro eustace mullins and this report
          1997 Eric Samuelson report: “Central Banking and the Private Control
          of Money,” Nexus (December 1998-January, 19991, p. 12.
          I am unable to find or verify that report but I would like to as it claims to know how many shares are owned by who.
          I really hope this isn’t like the repeated claim that the nazi’s used fluoride in their concentration camps supposedly came from borkins book on IG Farbien. I own that book and it has no mention of fluoride. I had cited the book myself until I actually checked. Now I need to verify the source, I don’t just read articles and claim them as fact.

        12. Apo – Not sure why I would bother to be kind to you, as you have insulted most of my learned friends here who take great pains to speak clearly and present cross references for those wishing to explore the subject more deeply. If this was a democratic blog you were voted off long ago.

          This is a link, you can use copy & paste on the address of the site.

          Your instructions brought us to many Alex Jones articles on the subject that you constantly bring up.

          Skimmed a few looking the percentages of ownership you were asked about but since this is not my top priority at the moment, provided the above link which lists the owners at the time the article was written.

      1. You’re in good company. Years ago I commented on something (don’t remember what) and was banned in five minutes. My comment wasn’t that bad, honest. There are places “Alex” refuses to go.

  13. Chomsky like Rosalind Peterson about geoengineering(according to what I have read) try to use official statements and documents to battle the authorities. In the case of JFK assassination and 9/11 the coverup is extensive making that approach much harder.
    So perhaps Chomsky thinks he would undermine his position.

    When he was perceived to defend Pol Pot he suffered alot of flac.
    And the actual truth of what happened then is still partly undecided.
    The absense of established experts taking part in the debate about 9/11 is a problem and his criticism may function as a provocation for people to call on the scientific elite to come forward and be much more helpful.
    Respected americans who understand whats being debated could encourage experts to come forward. Preferably in a conserted action.
    That would be more helpful than bashing the grass roots, like I think Chomsky is doing despite his enthusiasm for grass-root movements otherwise. But thats none of my business.

    Dmitri Khalezovs conclusion about 9/11 is actually closer to Chomskys than to most of the truthers although Chomsky naturally cannot be expected to share his general explanation. DK says SOME high level military men must have been involved otherwise the risk for a retaliation against the Sovjets (since according to DK the Pentagon was penetrated by the 7ton stolen sovjet nuclear cruise missile with the detonator switched off )and them striking back might have happened. But DK also says the idea was to humiliate the US elites having them through the panic of an emergency kill their own people by the thousands to save millions.
    Some part of the elites had to be ignorant in order to provoke that panic.
    So when Chomsky says its absurd to accuse the Bush government he is being more logical than the truthers although the truthers are trying their best.

    1. Peter: It’s NOT absurd to blame Bush admin for gross, multiple lies, lies, lies and lying, not to mention CRIMINAL cover-up, obstruction of justice, perjury, fraud, malfeasance, and refusal to serve the American people and to heed their instructions and demands.

      1. Agree 100%
        But given that you accept DKs analysis it looks absurd to accuse them for the false flag attack.
        Chomsky correctly perceived the absurdity.

        1. It’s not absurd to perceive Bush admin is part-parcel of the large conspiracy; if nothing else, Bush admin allowed it to happen, provided for all predicates, was then complicit at least after-the-fact.

          Don’t forget members of Bush Admin, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al., were PNAC members who plotted the general conspiracy in first place–“a new Pearl Harbor.”

        2. This means you do not accept or havent read DKs analysis which is nuanced and logical. Being a foreigner I feel uncomfortable pointing out high level individuals. You have to check it out for yourself

        3. apollonian
          I said it was logical and NUANCED that is detailed.
          Those you mention are all considered but separatetly by DK.
          Just to pick one example where I happened to hold a similar view before I read DKs text. I believed the neocons and PNAC were to crude to be at the centre of the plot. They’re a bunch of trolls.
          (I mean the type of ugly fictional figures in old childrens books)
          Obvious scapegoats.

        1. Peter: I ck’d the site u gave; there’s nothing there in way of summary. Don’t u think an author ought to be able to summarize his expo in reasonable way?–rather than to say, go here and read so many thousand words….

          Reminds me of David Icke telling Jesse Ventura he has to read a 700 page book 350,000 words to learn about reptilian shape-shifters.

        2. Peter: Tracy is genuine scholar, unlike urself, scholar’s time being limited for reading lots of stuff–we need to know if any prospective text is worth spending time for reading–that’s why u MUST give a reasonable summary if u want to pretend u really KNOW anything about it. If u can’t summarize it in reasonably brief space, then how should anyone think u actually KNOW anything about it?–u need to start getting a clue, here.

    2. DK is interesting. I do not agree with his conclusions but a lot of what he says has merit. None of these political figures are anything but “employees”. They don’t make decisions, they do what they were hired to do.

      In this case they brought in experts. Some from Israel, some from elsewhere. It doesn’t matter what country claims them. They all have bosses and they are paid to do as they’re told.

      I wouldn’t rule out some of DK’s discussion on where the material came from, etc., I have no reason to doubt it. Where I find problems is that this isn’t some sort of “spy vs spy” operation and it most certainly isn’t about “countries”.

      1. Have seen a lot of MSM stories lately about how ‘cloud seeding’ will save us. Pretty soon the sheeple will believe they have been upfront about dumping chemicals on us all along.

        Get the sense that more and more people are realizing those billowing trails and rainbow clouds in the sky are not natural and they are getting very angry about almost never having sunshine anymore.

        Their climate change agenda is going to backfire in their evil faces!

  14. OK, seems my computer is misbehaving. I want to bring up the program on NYC’s Pacifica radio–Guns and Butter with host Bonnie Faulkner discussing “Shock and Awe Economics” with econmist Michele
    Chuossudovsky. He says the bail out of Wall St. was a rehearsal for government privatization–complete takeover of national assests for profit

    The Fed moves the currancy up and down with derivative trading. Wall St. got US treasury bail outs,, which they can then loan back to the government. The IMF is behind the “Shock and Awe” process, which has come home to roost after raping third world countries for years.

    Will explain all things we find so perplexing. Market manipulation, for example, has pushed up the cost of gasoline exponentially which impoverishes emerging nations and those dependent upon a gasoline economy. Heavy, heavy information.

    1. This is a more direct link to the Michel Chuossudovsky/Bonnie Faulkner interview on Pacifica Radio this past week. It is so important, IMO, it
      pleads for distribution. He makes economics easy to understand even while the perps scramble ideas in coded language to befuddle public investigation.

      As they say, all crimes aren’t rocket science and all criminals aren’t rocket scientists.

      1. If that’s true, as u say, Marilyn, then why not sum-up Chossudovsky’s argument?–as a proper scholar would do. “Easy-to-understand” doesn’t make it true, or accurate, or even useful. After all, Marx’s idea was “easy to understand,” ho ho ho–just rip-off the productive people, by golly, eh? ho ho ho oho.

        As I’ve noted, the CRUX to all conspiracy is the US Federal Reserve Bank (legalized) COUNTERFEIT scam and central banking in general. Chossudovsky, as I understand, quite virtuously exposes and criticizes such as the IMF, but doesn’t really demand removal of the basic fraud of central-banking in the first place, merely demanding it be de-privatized.

        1. Believe I did attempt to shrink a complex hour long discussion into several cogent points. Above…on the other hand, I did leave a link for those so inclined to take a few minutes to learn about why the country is failing on both social and economic levels. You seem to have time on your hands.

          The bail out of Wall Street signaled the melt down of US sovereignty. Look into John Perkins’ book, “Confessions of an Econmic Hitman.” It will lead you unto the light.

          As a Socialist, MC sees right through the machinations of crony capitalism’s mask of feel-good propaganda. MC cites Detroit as the US model for ‘shock and awe” economics. Go have a listen; or do you need to be spoon fed?

        2. Yes, u did well, Marilyn; u deserve 2 fish, ho ho ho. Seriously, I read Perkin’s book–it wasn’t bad–but it didn’t lead me to the “light,” un-fortunately, as I believe Perkins himself leaves something to be desired.

          I think I agree, to a pt., Chossudovsky is an honest scholar, though unfortunately socialist–so he doesn’t really have the necessary basic clues–socialism is dictatorship, hence un-acceptable, u need to figure out.

          Like I say, neither Chossudovsky nor urself seems to understand the basic fraud of central banking, though as I say, Chossudovsky does deserve credit for exposing the present fascists and “crony-capitalists,” as u put it.

          If u knew anything about it, u’d understand scholars’ time is limited for the mass of text available and it’s necessary for brief summaries in order to know if it is worthwhile for spending time. U’ve finally given enough info for me to know Chossudovsky isn’t terribly bad, but still lacking for the real insight one gets on economics at, for example.

  15. I don’t think it’s a bit coincidenctal that the naysaying assets are of a certain ethnicity, or that the CIA worked with the Mossad to assassinate JFK. JFK refused to indulge Israel’s demands for nukes. LBJ was a hardcore zionist and the true father of neo-conservatism, really. His civil rights legislation was more radical and anti-white than JFK’s had been.

    Has anyone researched JFK, Jr.’s, death? When I heard from an Illuminati-believer that the same people who killed his father killed him I thought the notion extreme. But upon perusal, the facts do point to some sort of malfeasance. And, John Jr. was starting to investigate his father’s death.

    1. Barry Chamish has written a lot about the murder of John Jr. Barry’s book Who Murdered Yitzak Rabin? proved that it was Shimon Perez. This essential fact is referenced in most of Barry’s other works, as well.

      Perez is a serial murderer. He’s the one who knocked off Sharon–although the poison only put him into an irreversible coma; this had to do with truly high level corruption, and Sharon had to be gotten rid of. All Israeli politics is byzantine, and describing the details gets incredibly confusing. But generally, if you track the ugliness back, there will lurk Perez at the heart of it.

      You are wrong, Sue, about the origins of Israel’s nuclear program. Perez was responsible for that, too, but in the 50s. He sold Sephardic children to the US to experiment on in exchange for the technology. The founding of Israel was to be an Ashkenazi project, and those ignorant darkies were not welcome (look up The Transfer Agreement to really see the heart of that particular darkness). He’s a devil.

      In any event, John Jr. had a magazine called George, and he published a very lengthy, detailed article about Perez murdering Rabin, and how the whole official story was a giant lie. It was the only media organ in America to tell the truth about it. There was an Israeli Mossad agent involved; he was the driver of the limo that took them to the airport. He handled the bags. If memory serves, he planted the bomb in their baggage.

    2. Sue: I don’t know anyone who hasn’t researched JFK’s assassination to some degree.

      But the crux of all organized crime, hence top, organized conspiracy is the legalized COUNTERFEIT scam called US Federal Reserve Bank (the Fed)–they just print-up and now digitalize practically all the “money” (fiat-money) they need or want to doing anything, esp. for financing war. See,, for good expo on Fed.

      1. Good of you to point this out, and my oversight in not citing Zwicker’s Towers here which is clearly apt. Webster Tarpley also has some relevant insights re Chomsky, in my view.

        1. I have looked up the memoir of Zwicker on his disillusionment with Chomsky. One of the most powerful phrases I have read in it thus far is the defense of a person being accused of engaging in basically insane discourse when he is called “conspiracy theorist” simply because he questions an official story of an event. “The cumulative use of this putdown forms a psychological and political wall in society, that helps protect actual conspiracies from being discussed and investigated … it’s time to permanently decommission this weapon of psychological warfare.”

          It forces, as some have said, the dialogue between people to go on in a counterfeit manner, to pass false statements between one another lest they be thought “poor” or beggarly for not going along. They won’t lose their head in the Tower of London for the sin of not going along “for the fellowship” as the Man for All Seasons did. But to tell the truth or to seek it, can be ruinous of a career and put one out of the security that fawning on power has traditionally brought to people.

          The upside for Thomas More is that he was canonized (and some will say he went to heaven too, which is better).

          In our world, a career is a small risk compared with our forefathers’ pledging everything.

    1. From an Internet article:

      Professor Chomsky spoke to a modest gathering of acolytes in Budapest, Hungary. On the video, we see Chomsky relaxed, surrounded by wine bottles, banners in the background.

      The moderator asked him a two-part question regarding the repercussions of 9/11 and towards the end Chomsky says: “Even if 9/11 conspiracy theories were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? It doesn’t have any significance. It’s a little bit like the huge energy that’s put out on trying to figure out who killed John F. Kennedy. Who knows? And who cares? Plenty of people get killed all the time, why does it matter that one of them happened to be John F. Kennedy? If there was some reason to believe that there was a high level conspiracy, it might be interesting. But the evidence against that is just overwhelming. And after that, if it happened to be a jealous husband, or the mafia, or someone else, what difference does it make? It’s just taking energy away from serious issues onto ones that don’t matter.”

      1. This seems to violate the notion of justice, where a just society finds out who the murderer is so that he cannot do it again. But interestingly enough there were two other murders after JFK, which might not be entirely unrelated. One was MLK, the other was Bobbie. And, as some say, lots more. But he can sit there and say “Who cares?” because he probably feels that seeking justice is a “quaint” notion.

      2. Many of us have also heard and seen Professor Chomsky’s dismissive comments about 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination.

        “Who cares if Jim Garrison was right and elements in the CIA killed Kennedy?” “Who cares if a secret government executed a coup d’etat and our country is no longer a functioning democratic republic?”

        “Who cares if Sandy Hook was an elaborate hoax perpetrated by Bloomberg and others to erode our Second Amendment rights?”

        Patriotic Americans Professor. That’s who.

  16. Macon Richardson is quite right, conspiracy theories appear to be incompatible with Marxism and Marxists, Michael Parenti being a notable exception. Apparently the idea that a few persons can change history is incompatible, in the Marxist conception, with the broad tendencies of history. So the honest truthers of conspiracies tend to come more from rightist tendencies, including the racist populism of Alex Jones, etc.

    However Chomsky is not a Marxist, he is an anti-Marxist. He explicitly argued against Marxism in at least two of his books. His argument against conspiracies and conspiracy truthers is due to more academic cowardliness and intellectual corruption than a principled intellectual position, and Alex Cockburn, Matt Taibai, etc are corrupt in the same way.

    Anti-conspiracists conflate fantasy conspiracies–the Illuminati, the Masons, the Jews– with evidenced conspiracies, where the evidence demonstrates that the official and media narratives are obviously untrue.
    It’s usually impossible to say precisely what happened in these conspiraicies but it is possible to say would couldn’t possibly have happened, the media narrative. But this often de-legitimates authorized power, so anti-conspiracists side with power against evidenced truth.

    1. Mark: u made me go and do some brief research on Chomsky; bottom line is he’s pro-Israel, though w. qualifications, and he supports the typical Jew BIG-LIE regarding the holohoax. See,, and for expo on holohoax.

      To get to the crux of organized crime, hence conspiracy, one only needs grasp the US Federal Reserve Bank (the “Fed”) COUNTERFEIT scam–legalized counterfeiting, that’s what it is and does–simple, eh? But folks don’t want to face-up to this Fed fraud, many getting confused upon this abstract subject of money & banking.

      Even though Chomsky may not be Marxist, he’s leftist, and along w. his Israel connections, one easily sees he’s in w. establishment, hence the powers behind the Fed–even though Chomsky tries to cover himself w. his criticism of CFR, Trilateralists, etc.

      Otherwise, only thing I’d add is that Alex Jones ( is NOT racist–he’s libertarian along w. Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura.

      1. I find that Paul and Ventura are just like Chomsky – just tools that fit in different slots.

        Paul; “There’s a conspiracy here.”

        Ventura; “Is there a conspiracy here?!”

        Chomsky; “There’s no conspiracy here.”

        Truth be known, if anyone really wants to know just how deep the CONS-PIRACY & JFK/Mass Mind Control operation goes, you’ll have to venture down beyond the ‘rabbit hole’ toward the infernal realm.

        Look up: King Kill 33 degrees. Then take out a globe and do a finger tour of the 33rd parallel. Lot of nefarious activity (throughout history) on the areas along the 33rd.

        Hmm.. 33rd? Like those mysterious guys at the top of the heap in the 333rd degree, who ALL just so happen to be sitting on ALL of the thrones or in the cat bird seats.

        How coincidental…

        1. I meant to type – 33rd degree, not 333rd degree.

          Although, the degrees of their ‘craft’ go way beyond 33. It’s just that one must be tapped into the 33rd, then they can assume the ascent toward the higher degrees, but only after they have proven themselves to be ‘worthy’ – ‘worthy’ of being an obedient traitor to humanity because they serve the agenda of the masters (the so-called, ‘elite’) well.

        2. Zareth,

          I’m familiar with Downard’s work. Can you point me in any direction in the Sandy Hook event? Do you interpret Adam as a pharmakos?
          TIA, John

        3. Zareth: Ron Paul (see does the basic work–he explains the US Federal Reserve is simply and literally legalized COUNTERFEITING by which financing, these criminals own and control EVERYTHING and everybody, w. only very few exceptions.

          The Fed is the Locus of organized crime, controlling the financing, eliminating any competition, paying all the assassins, controlling the corp.s and esp. the “media” propaganda, including the public edjumacation, etc. Paul wrote a good book on the subject: “End the Fed,” so he’s done his obligatory work for scholarly foundation.

        4. Anyone claiming Paul or Ventura “tools” – an obvious assertion that Paul and Ventura a frauds/agents – is a SHILL or paid operative.

          Then you bring up the 33 degrees stuff. Come on man, keep it real here please. This blog is not for rookies, but shills have obviously found a home at Memory Hole Blog.

        5. Well, Bill Fred, I suggest that you go back and read my comments from other posts and THEN decide if I’m a shill or a ‘tool’ myself. Ron Paul never changed a thing. It’s known that his wife and daughters are Eastern Stars (Mason). My grandmother was an E.S. BECAUSE my grandfather (her husband) was a high level Mason. Explains why he talked a good game but never got off the bench and never scored a big winner for the little guys he ostensibly represented. He plays for the other side. If you believe his ‘act’ then you sir are a fool. Who’s the tool now Bill? Unwitting or otherwise, anyone who defends the ”shill’ (in Paul’s case, a ‘paid’ public servant) in a two-party scam system, becomes the tool.

          Mr. Paul’s ‘job’ I suspect, was to do the same thing that Assange (tool?) or more recently, the ‘snowjob’ named Snowden (tool?) was supposed to do – release information that is mostly already available in the public domain. He didn’t do anything to cause it to begin to unravel for the manufacturers of such ‘Disclosure.’ (yet another technique that is used to manipulate the masses.)

          Any questions? Or do you just want to prove my point for me with another of your baseless accusations?

        6. I wish I had a nickel for every blogger who knows someone that I don’t. It was amazing to see how many bloggers knew people from Sandy Hook – such a small town.

          A quick Google search of “Ron Paul Mason” brings up many results. Seems there’s some conflicting information out there. The last guy I watched said Paul is a Jesuit. Jesuit or Mason, or both?

          Doesn’t matter if he is a mason. Doesn’t matter at all. He is saying the right things like end the fed and get out of the middle east. And he’s not a loud mouth douche bag. People like Ron Paul.

          Your point that he “never got off the bench” could be just as easily blamed on the MSM and their support of the system.

          Your accusations are as baseless as mine. You have provided absolutely no proof to back up your claims, other than your granny knows some one.

          The purpose of this blog is not for people like you and apollian to spew your own personal beliefs.

        7. In small towns people know each other or of each other. Even people who used to live in such small towns.

  17. Why don’t we let Chomsky play with Arlen Specter’s magic bullet, while we play the Zapruder film, as a reminder.
    Why don’t we let him rant about instant 9/11 physicists, while we watch a real physicist like David Chandler (NIST finally admits freefall / Downward acceleration of the North Tower).
    Why don’t we just let Noam Chomsky alone and instead turn to his former friend from the Chomsky/Scott/Zinn days, Peter Dale Scott (JFK and 9/11, insights gained from studying both).

    1. Exactly, stop listening to the old fart and he will be less relevant. Many others more worthy of attention. For some reason, he seems to me to have always been controlled opposition, not the good guy who got compromised along the way. Just a general impression.

  18. If it was only Chomsky! But just about every major leader with a vested interest in denouncing 9/11 has instead sent her/his gullible supporters on wild goose chases that 9/11 Truth would nullify: Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Fidel Castro…the list is extremely long. This is arguably the biggest success of the Master 9/11 conspirators: the live TV broadcast of the twin towers’ destruction makes obvious their controlled demolition, the U.S. cover-up thereof is amateurish, yet the watchdogs will not bark.

    To Chomsky’s credit, a careful reading of this article suggests that he understands 9/11 much better than he claims and that he provides in doublespeak a warning for 9/11 researchers and activists to include the watchdogs’ failure to bark in their work. This will not surprise readers with a solid university experience: a professor will routinely make an astute and absurd statement to one student, evaluate the student’s reaction, and grade her/him accordingly.

    By the way, Chomsky seems to have a unique 9/11 doublespeak record. If only 9/11-cognizant people would review it carefully, they may get closer to solving 9/11.


    1. Good point Daniel
      I too have tried to interpret his partly shocking statements as a way to provoke people. For instance to eagerly address themselves to scientists of some standing instead of fiddling around amateurishly.
      And prove the ‘raving’ Chomsky wrong.

  19. Tangental to the topic at hand is a little Friday night reading:

    “Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama’s closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama’s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.” In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories” about the Government.”

    1. Wondering: note there’ve always been dis-info artists whether paid by gov. or not, w. official positions or not–politicians and bureaucrats are versed in lying as basic nature of the game they’re in, ho ho ho.

      Humans are sinners, never forget–always lying and trying to fool oneself or others. Basic lie is we have a perfectly “free” will, like God’s, capable of “good-evil.” And that’s what Christianity is, worship of TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH (Gosp. JOHN 14:6) above all/any other precept(s), against lies (JOHN 8:44).

      The more these clowns w. degrees strive, and work, and strain, and insist there’s no conspiracy–guess what?–the more we know they’re trying to hide something, eh? Ho ho ho ho

    2. Thanks for helping me prove my point with Bill Fred. This is all the validation I need – “pseudo-“independent” advocates” – Sunstein probably got the idea while sitting in on congress and watching all of their ‘pseudo-advocacy’ theatrics on behalf of their so-called constituents – or so the storyline goes.

      Sunstein? No doubt, she is obviously one of the ‘pernicious’ players that support the ‘new order’ that GHWB referenced while he was President – not long before his son became President. And now, I’m hearing that his other son might become the next one.

      Or do you still believe elections are ‘real’ too, Bill Fred? The more I think about it… just who are you, really, “Bill Fred?” If that’s even your ‘real’ name.

      Remember, “Mr. Fred, when you point a finger at someone, there are three pointed right back at you.” Just something I learned in kindergarten.

      Look – We all know (I hope) that our public ‘servants’ are actually there to serve themselves – NOT the American People. Wake up Bill, unless you’re the shill – in that case, shut up. At least go and cast your little tidbits at someone who hasn’t done 30-plus years of diligent, and I mean DILIGENT research, and written three books describing the nature of the ‘games’ that the ruling class play with the masses – in order to keep the majority of the ‘many’ in a constant state of confusion and in the stressful undertow of fright, flight or fight response mode, all through fear of ‘the system.’

      Thanks again for posting this. I hope it wakes up a few more People.

        1. Thank you for your interest Violeta. Google the name – or Twitter my other nom de plume/avatar – Zareth the Alchemist – for some of my thoughts on everything from A to Z.

          The books are no longer ‘publicly’ available. Two of the three volumes were published on Lulu(dot)com. I removed them and now have them available (at no charge) – but only when I give presentations, so that the possible reader(s) have an understanding of certain subject matter, before they dive head-first into the rabbit hole. My works are rather controversial and cover everything from Alchemy to Zoroastrianism – a compendium of clues – from A to Z, literally.

          My YouTube channel has numerous opinions posted along with certain videos that I came across and thought might help any open-minded curiosity seekers. My years involved with Alchemy have cleared the way for a lens on the World that Nature bestows in the process of ‘transmutation’ & ‘transformation’ – mainly ‘discernment.’

          Many People are still under the spell of the controllers, and are being ‘trans-mutated’ (through GMO’s) & trance-‘formed’ (mind-controlled by the TV) because they’re mesmerized and hypnotized, and simply cannot ‘see’ clearly. That’s not ‘prejudgment’ – that would be prejudice, right? That’s been my actual experience in these very confusing times of Universal deceit. Besides, I only believe that there’s ONE RACE – the human race. All that other programming is necessary for the few to control the many by ‘divide and conquer’ — as they have done for millennia.

          I don’t want to cause Peoples’ belief systems (BS) to dis-integrate from their deluded sense of ‘reality’ just because I see beyond the theatrics now myself – I just want to nudge them – not judge them. Sometimes though, they ‘nudge’ me a little too ‘harshly’ (judgmentally) – then I present them with the ‘truths’ regarding their addiction to ‘facts.’ I don’t suffer ignorance posing as intellect happily, at all.

          That’s my story. I’m enamored with Prof. Tracy’s courage and the venue of his amazingly informed & truthful blog, and the many People who also see the glaring inconsistencies and apparent in-congruent nature of mankind in the process.

          This site is proof that it’s inherent in human nature not to trust ‘human nature.’ It’s so refreshing to know that I’m not alone ‘down here.’ Bless you.

      1. Mr. Zareth, it was you who was first pointing the finger, please remember that. I just stuck up for Paul and Ventura. You have nothing at all but a keyboard.

  20. James Tracy interprets Chomsky to mean the following regarding 9/11: “In other words, plans of such magnitude could not be successfully carried out without a good number of people knowing.[2] The system works, and thus the rule of law prevails.”
    I agree that his complete stance is pathetic saying if the buildings were demolished by bombs it would have to be Osama behind it. But to say there would have to be a good number of people involved is logical and to accuse C for believing the system works isnt fair.
    For example he cited JFK saying something sounding like it came from Hitler, regarding Usas relation towards Latin America. About the rights of strong people/nations to dominate(and of course exploit)
    Maybe he said so to calm the fascist parts of the establishment. I hope so but I am not sure there is anything but fascism about your system.

    1. Peter: I commented at ur other note here on that Russian guy u cited. I still think u need to tell us in ur own words, in reasonable brief way, what the Russian’s case is–there’s no way anything happened without NSA and CIA and MOSSAD knowing about it. So tell us what happened.

        1. Peter: I can read, as u well know–the problem is whether I ought to spend time doing so–that’s why a scholar would ask u for a brief abstract so as to know whether it’s useful to spend the time.

          But Peter, u don’t seem to understand real scholarship, do u?–and if u don’t, then that’s not good for confidence in ur appraisal of the Russian guy’s expo.

          U don’t even really understand the Russian guy’s expo, do u, Peter?–that’s why u’re not capable of summarizing in brief, reasonable way.

          Peter: u’re like David Icke, who told Jesse Ventura, to read his book of 700 pages and 350,000 words if he wanted to learn about reptilian shape-shifters, ho hoo ho ho ho. Sorry Peter, but u’re poor salesman for ideas of that Russian guy, ho ho ho ho

        2. ” u don’t seem to understand real scholarship, do u?–and if u don’t, then that’s not good for confidence in ur ”

          REAL scholars write “you,” not “u” and “your,” not “ur.”

          We have a word for people who write “u” and “ur”: morons. And we don’t give them the time of day. We only reply to their overwrought ramblings as a way to laugh at them.

        3. Yes, but my dear Patrick: this presumes u know anything about scholarship, eh?–ho ho ho ho ho ho ho–otherwise known as “leg to standing upon,” eh? ho ho ho hoo oho

        4. This guy apollonian is turning out to be your regular troll/spammer/copy & paste internet bandit. Hopefully he’s gonna get banned soon. A regular douche bag.

        5. Bill,
          Ap-baloney-ian lashes out because he is exhausted. Its a full time job trying to reconcile his Ayn Rand books with his faith. On top of being an out of work mall Santa. Ho Ho Ho!

        6. I’m pretty sure he got banned from Sandy Hook Truth after the blog host found out he was copy/pasting conversations over to his own blog.

        7. Ho ho ho–as if “copy/pasting conversations” is some kind of offense, ho ho ho ho ho.

  21. It isn’t necessary to attribute the views of Chomsky to Machiavellian cleverness; we are all blinded to some extent by our ideologies and therefore are in certain ways ideologically stupid, especially the Educated and Intelligent. Ideological stupidity may play as large a role as geostrategy in the views of leaders and truthers.

    This is illustrated in the current crisis in Ukraine by state department Nuland’s comments to the American ambassador. She discussed American grand strategy about the putsch over a cell phone. Incredible. A neocon, the wife of Robert Kagan, she was so blinded by her Elite position and ideology that she ignored the obvious threat that her calls would be monitored. Chomsky exhibits the same kind of ideological blindness in denying the obvious evidence of power conspiracies, currently defending the Bush administration of involvement in the 9/11 homicide.

    The notion of ideological stupidity is a chastening thought, and has led to very destructive wars, notably world war 1, which was not intended by any power. The US is currently support a putsch in Ukraine engineered by two neo-Nazi parties, who are currently fire bombing and trashing synagogues and Orthodox churches, while Russia and the West both threaten war.

    Marxism assumes that political and economic leaders are rational in promoting their own interests. Really? Is the Ukraine crisis rational from the perspective of American power, let alone from the perspective of the American people. Chomsky is a highly intelligent and Educated man; but the question can be asked, is he rational? If ideological stupidity is a major force in our political and ideological affairs, induced by Elite ideological blindness, than we have to think differently about the Evil that occurs, and the people who produce it.

    1. I am concerned too that we will blunder into war. It is clear that we have already interfered in the affairs of the Ukraine, and in my opinion backed the wrong side (supposedly as a means to the end of westernizing the country). I have not seen news of actual attacks on synagogues and such. But then publicizing what our “friends” are up to perhaps would create some problems with some of the supporters of the putsch, including neocons like the Kagans. And in Israeli papers, I see evidence that they are miffed with Obama for not just going in and attacking Putin and Assad, as well as Iran. In fact they don’t much care for Obama there because he doesn’t jump fast enough to do the bidding of the right wing there.

      1. USA Revival Requires Cultural Revolution, REJECTION Of Israeli Terror State

        Musings: war is traditional, obligatory next step when currency (US Dollar) seriously begins to collapse, as we’re already well into intermediate stages of such collapse, as well as quite a bit of a substantial recession. In fact, we already have SEVERAL little wars going on, eh?

        Another consideration is powers want to make sure there’s terror and fear among citizenry which will then allow such as martial-law and curtailing of rights, freedom, and dissent.

        What are criminals but those who wage war against law, reason, and humanity?–have u observed who/what has taken control of USA, its culture, economy, money & banking system, edjumacation, and even the “Christian”-styled churches? Is there any doubt there’s war against US Constitution, esp. the Bill of Rights?

        Of course there are the ABSTRACT cultural problems, esp. in way of general irrationalism which has swept away former Christian-oriented culture of TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH, this in the name of “good” and the perfectly “free” human will.

        But in PRACTICAL terms, the CRUX of the ruling criminal conspiracy is US Federal Reserve Bank COUNTERFEIT scam, as I’ve noted, these powers led by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Trilateralists, and Bilderbergers.

        Only serious, practical hope I see is the return of original American rationalist culture and Christian orientation, TRUTH (hence reason) the only way to Godly happiness (Gosp. JOHN 14:6), this coming in much the same way as St. Constantine the Great much revived the otherwise moribund Roman empire of early 4th cent., Americans thus rejecting, for most poignant example, supporting the terror-state of Israel–this would be tremendous revolution, eh?

    2. Mark
      You say WWI was not intended by any power.
      It was definitely intended by the british. They did everything in their power. The liberal british prime who wanted peace knew nothing about what the round tablers and Edward VII were up to. The liberal leaders closest associates were all aligned with the war mongers
      Good read Gerry Dogherty & Jim MacGregor Hidden History 2013.
      After WWI Herbert Hoover organized a largescale document acquisition from European archives in order to hide the truth about the allies.
      German politicians of today are brainwashed by british propaganda and really think they started two worlds wars. The angloamericans fooled them once they fooled them twice and they still dont get it.

  22. Musings, Israeli military activists are fighting on the side of the American supported neo-Nazi party Svoboda, and leading Ukrainians in helping to seize power. Israel, and America simply don’t care that they are anti-Semitic, they are concerned about geo-political developments. In addition to trashing Russian oriented Orthodox churches and synagogues, the fascists also have burned many of the local offices of the majority party that they displaced.

    The opposition and the president agreed to elections on May 25, and this was witnessed and agreed to by EU representatives. But they would probably lose the election, since the Russian oriented Party of Regions had majority support. All the parties are corrupt and controlled by plutocrats which they call Oligarchs there, even worse than American parties.

    But rather than lose the election, the US had Svoboda seize power, having been professionally trained in street fighting and equipped by Nato. They were assisted by another neo-Nazi party ‘Right Sector’ in English. Both parties stemmed from the time of Hitler and the German fight against the Soviet Union in world war 2.

    For reasons I don’t understand, the US apparently wants to split Ukraine and blame it on the Russians. The first thing that the US controlled parlement did after installing themselves was to de-legalize the Russian language,, the first language of a sizable minority of Ukrainians. Naturally this insult and injury mobilized the Russian-speaking against the government. they live in the East and South and contain most of the industry.

    According to Emmanuel Wallerstein, the world-system theorist now at Yale, the US is afraid that Germany/France will ally with Russia, pulling West Europe away from the US. US policy may help prevent or delay it, although I don’t see how. It’s true that this policy f**ks the EU, but how does it serve American geo-political interests? Needless to say, it will cause great suffering as the populations are exchanged, as did the devastation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc. This time with the possibility of general war.

    1. jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj

      Posted by Brad | February 20, 2014, 8:33 am

      Pierre Omid­yar co-funded Ukraine rev­o­lu­tion groups with US gov­ern­ment, doc­u­ments show By Mark Ames On Feb­ru­ary 28, 2014 Just hours after last weekend’s ouster of Ukrain­ian pres­i­dent Vik­tor Yanukovych, one of Pierre Omidyar’s newest hires at national secu­rity blog “The Inter­cept,” was already dig­ging for the truth. Marcy Wheeler, who is the new site’s “senior pol­icy ana­lyst,” spec­u­lated that the Ukraine rev­o­lu­tion was likely a “coup” engi­neered by “deep forces” on behalf of “Pax Amer­i­cana”:
      (This excepted from spitfirelist re the Ukranian crisis…George Sorors is also implicated in funding the opposition ranks that are destroying monuments, Orthodox churches, synagogues in Kiev. So is it really about bringing Western democracy to the region or more accurately poking the Russian Bear? There was a standing army OUN-B, Ukranian Nationalists, during WW11 who sided with the NAZIs in spirit and in force. Pray this situation doesn’t result in ‘blowback’ and explode into a wider conflict.)

      1. I know practically nothing about world politics, but it seems as if there is a big monopoly game going on.

        Here’s some yesterday’s news about George Soros. He’s investing in Spanish real estate to help not only Spain, but also the Euro. What a guy!

        May I ask….If America and Israel are involved together in what is happening in the Ukraine, and then we see that George Soros is helping, too, are they on opposite sides or working together?

        1. ————————————–

          Violeta; from what one can make of a really Byzantine storyline, Soros and Pierre Odmidyar are all about making money. Anywhere they see an opportunity, they seize it regardless of politics. And the wealtlhy EU/US/UK/Israeli nexus presents the most open opportunity. Thus their support of the EU faction in Ukraine. When you lack morals, you substitute that drive with other satisfying elements. Just my take on it. (Russia is exercising control over its economy which really whizzes off carpetbaggers.)

        2. Thank you, Marilyn, for the easy to understand bottom line on what’s going on there.

          Very interesting about Russia exercising control over its economy. Is that what the BRIC countries are about?

        3. Forgive me, violeta, I know I’m not Marilyn, but as I understand, the BRICS (the “S” standing for S. Africa) are trying to establish a new, better “reserve currency” to replace the US Dollar and Euro which Dollar and Euro-dollar are being heavily inflated (to finance their wars), this gross inflation (effective de-valuation) then working to obvious dis-advantage of those forced/required to use it, esp. for purchase of Petroleum, upon which USA has iron-clad grip–was why, it is said, Iraq and Libya were destroyed as they tried to elude Petro-dollar.

    2. I have read of one bum from the Ukraine who moved to Israel, worked up his skills in Operation Cast Lead, and returned to organize street Nazis in Ukraine. “You can’t make this stuff up.” It seems that those who forget history must repeat it. I wish the Israelis, so deeply in denial about what they are doing to Palestinians, will have the guts to confront themselves. Making new refugees with a “right of return” is rather a traumatizing way to proceed, even if the oligarchs do want to call the shots. Too bad the run-up to WWII replays, nested in the run-up to WWI. Street thugs do not a democracy portend. Even with John Kerry lauding them in his best Brahmin drawl.

  23. Excellent piece on Chomsky and a very revealing video. What an accomplished and casual liar he is. He most certainly knows that what he is saying is not true. In point of fact the Bush administration and main stream media did try to link 911 to Iraq. Cheny claimed that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. Also, the anthrax attacks were clearly intended to make the connection between a state actor (Iraq) and the 911 terrorists. America would never have preemptively invaded Iraq if there had been no 911 attacks.
    Chomsky is a little like the proverbial canary in the coal mine for the political left in this country. His prose style is so opaque that few people actually read his books. Believing that he would not hesitate to raise his voice at any obvious state crime, Liberal America rests assured that Chomsky has scrutinized the arguments of the 911 truth movement and dismissed them as spurious. His absence of alarm gives many on the political left in academia cover for their timidity in questioning the lies behind the 911 myth. Were he to raise his voice in calling for a new investigation, many (read Amy Goodman et all) would be forced to take note, and take action.

    1. Well put, Christo. I do think it’s important when someone like Chomsky dismisses the policy benefits to the Bush regime of the 9/11 and to military budgets in particular to remind ourselves how the public perceptions were shaped. So often people neglect the anthrax part of it or the bait and switch which led to the Iraq invasion in “shock and awe” (which is what was first directed at all of us).

    2. ” Believing that he would not hesitate to raise his voice at any obvious state crime, Liberal America rests assured that Chomsky has scrutinized the arguments of the 911 truth movement and dismissed them as spurious. His absence of alarm gives many on the political left in academia cover for their timidity in questioning the lies behind the 911 myth.”

      It is always a problem with places like this to worry about repetition and subsequent boredom. I don’t want to drone on, for consideration of those who have been here a long time, but at eh same time we have lots of new participants.

      So I will summarize my familiar argument. It has long been my question: what, today, is the “left”? It has always been the movement toward 1984. Hitler, obviously, was a man of the left. Stalin, whom the American left has always run interference for, was far, far worse than Hitler. They, the left, love Castro. Imagine that. Unimaginable. Vicious, evil, destruction of everything decent, and the left admires it. Yet, Hitler, one of their own, they treat as anathema? How do they work those mental gymnastics?

      So, the “left” is a theoretical mishmash, in terms of the minds of its adherents. So the question is, what is it that causes people today to want to be called “liberals,” or “progressives”? It is undiluted evil, in its effects, yet it retains a strange attractiveness.

      My theory is that the forces driving us into the arms of Orwell’s O’Brian is the bizarre ideology of neoconservatism, which naturally strikes decent people as horrifying. So they feel their only option is to trust the “left” to represent the only alternative. it’s a false dichotomy.

      Just as O’Brian acknowledged to Winston Smith that he himself had written Emmanuel Goldstien’s book, the powers that are driving us like cattle into 1984 are in charge of both sides. That is, they are two sides of the same coin.

      So, at the risk of boring the regulars here, once again, it is my opinion that it should be completely obvious to well-meaning people who lean to the “left” that the left is openly driving the cattle into 1984. They can’t see it.

      The ONLY choice is libertarianism, for well-meaning people. Unfortunately, the “left” has been training us to think of libertarianism as an extreme expression of the “right,” which is ridiculous. The “right” believes in a vast, aggrandized state. Libertarians want the state to atrophy into the powerlessness it had before Lincoln changed our world.

      1. ————————————-

        Patrick I can’t understand how you morphed from the “left” into a libertarian. I am left. Not that smart–just smart enough to be a burr on the backside of some who look for threats in every corner. And I have been online since 1999 checking the dark cranies for bits of odd info that just don’t add up.

        People are habituated to seeking opposites, but the left/right paradigm no longer has validitly.The sides are enjoined at the hip and lip, playing out their roles from different vantages of the political spectrum. As long as we buy in, they have it mastered. We do the heavy lifting; they just supervise.

        The guy who said state is an evil did not give any alternative suggestions; I took that to mean he was asking us to iron out the problems and come up with a stronger government system. A system that allows for all the good things democracy offers.
        Now there is a monumental task.

        Economics is just one facet of the overarching dilemma. As long as corruption rules, no system is safe from self destruction. Individuals absorb the prevailing aura of their society; It is only the one who can cut through the fog to redefine reality who makes a difference. And they are in short supply.

        1. Well, Marilyn, as always, it is a pleasure to chat with you. In this cased, it appears we have little to fight about. I can’t see what you mean when you say ” I can’t understand how you morphed from the “left” into a libertarian. I am left.”, but then say ” but the left/right paradigm no longer has validity”. Isn’t that the point I was trying to make?

          The state, by definition, is evil. It always wants to grow. Empire is the result. It can never be our friend. It starts out a cute kitten and ends up an untamable, man-eating tiger, every time.

          I can offer no alternative suggestions. And if you take it to mean by default I suggest a stronger state, to any form of “democracy,” well, you misunderstood me. Democracy is two wolves and one lamb voting on what to eat for dinner.

          There are no good solutions. The state is impossible to redeem. As I have said before, self-government, family government and church government are the only forms of government we can hold hope in. The state wants, always, to strip away those forms of government, denuding the only goodness in society. Re-read 1984. That’s what the state is after. None of the good forms of government are allowed to remain.

          The left is deluded. It thinks the so-called “right” is the enemy. It thinks Hitler is not a leftist. Pure delusion.

          The only alternative suggestion is impossible: libertarianism. The restoration of the wonderful world America was before Lincoln destroyed it. Think of it. No taxes of any kind. No bureaucrats. We took care of ourselves, our families took care of us in old age. Private charities took care of those with no families. Freedom.

          I have no hope at all that that freedom will ever be restored. 1984 is our future. But, we can in fact hold in our hearts a dream of freedom, where Big Brother is impossible, even if he is certain to take over. Winston Smith was forced to “love” Big Brother, in the end, by means of torture. It has not yet come tot that. Which is why I am utterly mystified that there are any intelligent people who still cling to the idea that the left is in any way idealistic. It is the yellow brick road to 1984. It is slavery. There is nothing idealistic about it.

          There was a time, in the past, when Pete Seeger and his ilk (again, forgive me for repeating myself) sang songs of the glorious dreams of union organizers, the IWW, and all the rest, and one could be forgiven for not knowing about the Soviet gulags, and the millions starved to death, or the incredible horrors Castro brought about in a formerly wonderful Cuba. But not now. The left is pure evil. It is the road to 1984. No good person can yet stand by it, in good faith. Only by delusion can good people still call themselves leftists.

          That being obvious and true, the decent person in our artificial political world only has the option to choose the equally evil neoconservatism. But that’s a false choice. We need choose neither. We can stand outside that ridiculous paradigm: libertarianism.

          But, of course, libertarianism will not be restored. We will not go back to the lovely times of out first 300 years on this continent. Ever. 1984 is coming. Prepare.

        2. ————————————-

          Absent the use of ‘left’ and ‘right’ we will have a hard time defining political poles. I see my ‘leftish’ leanings, however, encompassing populism, egalitarianism,a more giving, less self-absorbed pproache to social interaction. That, of course, is simplistic and optomistic. I see the right as opposite many of those personal traits in many respects, based on my biases.

          But going back in history, I recall NIxon, Reagan, the Bushes as the epitome of things I dislike and distrust in human nature. Again stereotypes. But where have you obtained your current philosophy? Read Lew Rockwell and found him stilted, with many ideas that certainly did not coincide with my political persuasion. Once one stakes out a position on any topic, it seems we will plant our flag and defend it against all and any usurpers–be it a solid cause or flimsy in conception. I find libertrianism the latter.

          According to your theory, it flourished when the US was new and weak, without strong leadership and lacking in direction. We did founder for many years trying to find a national identity. When we finally did get our sealegs, stronger personalities took the reins and never relinquished their power. A series of weak presidents, the Civil War left Washington reeling; yet we survived and I would imagine primarily due to our protecting oceans and our drive west.

          So, in summary, let us just say no one has all the answers and it appears no one has the courage to lead a procession of change. A smaller government with the proper guidelines appeals. It has become little more than a repository for economic cronyism and political nepotism. May God intervene in our behalf.



        3. Marilyn, if both the “left” and the “right” agree on the core ideas, i.e. that the federal government should have an FBI, CIA, IRS, EPA, Department of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Justice, etc,; that the federal government quite properly handed over a monopoly on the creation of money to a cartel of the biggest banks and the Fed should continue to operate; that it is the role of the federal government to take care of people’s financial needs in their old age, and their medical care at any time at all; that the federal government should be allowed to own vast expanses of land in the western states; that it is right and proper for secret deep underground military bases to be constructed; that we (the federal government standing in for “us”) should be meddling in the internal affairs of other governments, killing their leaders if “we” don’t like their policies, then what difference is there between them, after all?

          I came to the conclusion that I disagree with all of the above. Until Lincoln’s stinking war, the federal government did none of these things, and no one wanted it to do them. That to me is a paradisiacal dream. All one had to do, in those days, if one found the state you lived within had become corrupted was move to a different one, where it was not so.

          I see absolutely no difference between Republican presidents and Democrat ones. The federal government does all the things I listed under both, and always does more of it. Neither care to restore our freedom in any way at all. Both desire to further the intrusion into our personal lives of the federal government. They used to talk about these things differently, but any more their rhetoric is pretty much the same. They are two sides of the same statist coin.

          So if one insists that there is a political continuum and nowhere on it can you find freedom from government intrusion, what good does such a theoretical model serve? If it’s all totalitarian, Stalin on one side and Hitler on the other, it’s all evil in-between. It’s just a question of how much of a role does the state allow corporate interests in furthering the state’s goals.

          If you are comfortable with such a world, that’s your choice. Some people don’t want to be free. They want the state to take care of everyone. The problem is, when you advocate such a thing you are implicitly forbidding any individual from opting out. I don’t like that.

          That’s why the spectrum I use has communism and fascism, kissing cousins, crowded on the far left, along with all other statist models–that is total government in any form is “leftism.” As we move to the right, the state is systematically stripped of power until there is no state at all–anarchism.

          Libertarianism is somewhere in between; I acknowledge the need for a secular state, but it should be as close to home as possible; the more authority it has, the more accountable it must be. Jefferson, asked how big the government should be, responded “a mile square.”

          So, in my view, the Articles of Confederation was a very good form of government for the newly freed colonies, and if they had been left in place it is likely, again in my view, that the confederation would have soon broken up into four confederations–along the lines of the four british folkways described in the book Albion’s Seed. This would be a very good thing–the smaller the state, both in power and territory, the better. Certainly, the Chocktaws and the Cherokees would not have been forcibly removed from their lands, and the Plains Indian tribes would not have been slaughtered and those who survived permanently held in concentration camps. How anyone can justify the way this country grew is beyond me.

          I was a foolish and wicked young man when I was attracted to leftism. I thought it was idealism. I thought Castro was good for Cuba, and the theft of private property by the state an ideal arrangement. I wanted personal freedom, but also wanted the state to be all-encompassing. I was too stupid to see the contradiction. In 1984, no one even owns their own thoughts.

          I woke up from that delusion by reading and thinking, and later on discovered that others were thinking along the same lines. Most of them end up gravitating to Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises.

        4. I never considered the political spectrum a straight line. More like a circle, where left and right eventually meet in the back. And as far as unions go… it sickens me. I have to pay protection to the union to have a decent job, so I can get decent pay, so I can pay the other protection racket, the government, in the form of income tax. They are just two gangs who pretend to be at odds. There true function is to use me to suck money out of a company. In return the company gets to blame the employee for its problems, and vice versa. Meanwhile the union and the government run away with the money, and the workers become more and more redundant as they scheme to make the most pay for the least amount of effort. Then, when technology replaces them, its a “war on workers”.

      2. The allusion to Goldstein’s essence as a false hope for useful idiots like Smith and as a creation of Big Brother is very pertinent. I’ll respectfully offer that it does not apply to Chomsky, though. Goldstein’s manifesto appears to point very close to the source of IngSoc’s evil. It is almost a confession by Big Brother. Goldstein’s equivalent would be the 9/11 Truth leaders. By the way, it is likely that many major 9/11-cognizant leaders somehow knowingly work for the Master 9/11 conspirators and discreetly try to keep ordinary political activists away from 9/11 and 9/11 activists away from the most promising 9/11 activism.

        Chomsky instead would fall into some dissident thought system within IngSoc, to the extent that such a dissidence may exist.

        I’ll also respectfully generalize your correct accusations against leftist leaders like Chomsky. Muslim leaders have not fared better. Neither have technical leaders, like the leaders of the American Society of Civil Engineers and their foreign colleagues. Neither have “enemy” leaders or “rogue” leaders or “rival” leaders like Castro, Gaddafi, Assad, Putin, the Hamas leadership, etc. In fact, one of the several blessings of 9/11 is that it compellingly demonstrate that the anti-neoconservative watchdogs will not bark over the self-evident and widely televised criminal controlled demolition of the twin towers under evacuation, even though it would benefit them so much. The watchdogs’ near-complete failure to bark is arguably 9/11’s essential fundamental teaching and an exciting sociological enigma. More information and the hint of an even more exciting resolution is available at'%20censorship.htm.


        1. Excellent comments. I agree.

          One thing I will add is something I said here some months back: I have a grudging sympathy for the rogues gallery you listed (although I couldn’t include Hamas in the list); any time a small country tries to develop freely their own cultural and governmental expression, the US interferes. If it is a free and open system, the CIA secretly sets up opposition parties to undermine it. So, to keep the Americans out, they choose totalitarianism as their only option.

          Gaddafi was an exception; he was no totalitarian, yet he somehow kept the West out of his country. Libya was one of the only countries in the World with no central bank, for instance–which is why the West had to destroy the country, in my opinion.

          Back when I wrote about these things, I mentioned the 1950s when the brothers Dulles, Allan and Foster, were in charge of CIA and State; they were both corporate attorneys who believed that the role of the federal government was to make the world safe for American corporations to operate anywhere, anyway they saw fit. The brothers conspired to overthrow any government that stood in the way of this, the State department running interference in public while the CIA did the dirtiest of deeds in secret.

          In a world like that, there is no hope for a small country.

          The mystery is how few Americans can see the wickedness of American behavior. It has been systematic, ever since Lincoln’s vile generals, bored after they finally finished off the Plains Indians, decided to steal Cuba and the Philippines from Spain. Americans liked that nasty business, too.

        2. Daniel
          Interesting reflections.
          I focus on one aspect. The need for scientific focus and assistance. As Dmitri Khalezov gained followers, Steven E Jones pulled out or so it seemed to me. Maybe, I speculated, his former colleagues were at risk to loose their funding, or some other subtle risk factor – never openly spelled out of course. But why didnt he join the debate treating the various aspects of DKs explanations. Obviously the high percentage of 50000tons of steel turning into dust ought to strike Steven and most other physicists, apart from the human tragedy of people turning into sand, as an irresistable problem to solve.
          Outside the community of atom bomb scientists this is unheard of but not out of reach for analysis using the main body of theoretical physics.
          What else than a nuclear explosion can create the enormous concentration of energy in space and time to enable a pressure gradient able to confuse the atoms so much they dont remember where they were and instead turn into tiny grains. Reminds me of the biblical myth about Lots wife(?) turning into salt. But maybe some of you learned people can correct me about that myth.

        3. You formulate interesting and important points. They are not essential, though. Jones and Khalezov, irrespective of the quasi-certainty that one of them is either terribly mistaken or hypocritical, have the merit of affirming, supporting and teaching that the twin towers’ destruction mechanism was a criminal controlled demolition. As such, historians who want to understand the specifics of 9/11 will review their work and try to sort out why they differ so markedly. On the other hand, activists who want to fix and save the world will look for lower-hanging fruit, which is not difficult to find: the abundance of bully pulpits that live the mythical attribution of 9/11’s destruction to Osama bin Laden’s fanatical hijackers. Chomsky’s participation in the 9/11 censorship is one of an almost endless list of targets for activism. Since the demonstration of the twin towers’ controlled demolition is intellectually trivial, even low-level leaders like mayors can and should be tested on it.

          Ironically, sorting between competing 9/11 theories will stay extremely difficult as long as the 9/11 censorship is in the way. So a point could be made that the best way to sort them out is to systematically discredit the above-mentioned bully pulpits. Hence discerning and caring historians shall join the activists. 9/11’s call to unity in diversity in one of the strongest.


        4. But Daniel 9/11 censorship doesnt prevent individuals networking and communicating off the record with experts after arming themselves with a few hopefully pertinent and decisive questions. Do the freedomloving americans, not all libertarians but still a little bit in that direction, really need assistance by strong leaders of sorts to initiate such things?
          This sounds to me like americans would be characterized by learned helplessness and werent able to think and act independently.
          Do you know of a single example when people among the best and the brightest minds in the Usa(whoever you like to give that label) have been consulted by activists regarding 9/11?

        5. “Americans would be characterized by learned helplessness and weren’t able to think and act independently.” It would seem so, wouldn’t it?

          The “best and brightest” minds of not only the USA, but the entire world, have been eliminated, or neutralized, or coopted, or [fill in the blanks] by the elusive but necessarily real Master 9/11 censors. Chomsky is just one instance of this process. The reverse truth is that the leaders who are going to propel humanity beyond this 9/11 hump and into a sociological organization that will be the opposite of whatever the Master 9/11 conspirators have in mind are not the “best and brightest.” The 9/11 censorship has been top-down, so its antidote may have to be bottom-up. If and when enough people understand the paramount importance of the 9/11 censorship and reduce their trust in rulers and leaders who support that censorship by living the mythical attribution of 9/11 to Osama bin Laden’s fanatical hijackers, it may just start. Section 7 of brushes on this.


        6. Daniel
          I have seen some of your posting showing you know there is some higher entity involved beyond the popular belief about zionism, which is now very much in focus.
          (I would like to add that accusations of Israel is what the fascists who presently rule Israel want, so minimizing talk about something above them helps maintaining Israel as a rogue state and makes it much harder for decent people to take over.)
          You have rightly emphasized the absense of skepticism against the official 9/11 narrative from the assumed enemies or competition of the USA.
          In the case of Russia blackmail is part of it. The now 20 missing 7ton supersonic thermonuclear cruise missiles preprogrammed for NATO targets are very problematic for them. The official russian version was that they destroyed them when the Kursk was buried.(btw Janes had article ab this type of missile the day before 9/11)
          It is therefore in russias interest to cooperate with the Us elites concerning what hit the Pentagon and there is no reason to believe that the americans would accept other than full cooperation about the coverup.
          The higher entity behind 9/11 full well predicted this.
          So at least in the case of Russia there is no mystery about their silence.
          I agree with you that Irans silence ought to tell us something.

          You say it aint the best and the brightest who will lead us.
          I agree 100% that they wont lead us, since they have other safer options. But what I’m saying is those grassroots you hope to inspire could consider spending more effort CONSULTING them. Borrowing their expertise, off the record, no serious embarrasment.
          Mr Gage who you praise is all right, but why not look further?
          Like I said it is an irresistible challenge for many physicists to understand the mechanism behind this type of collapse.
          And I dont think Steven E Jones nor DK are hypocrits. Jones pulling out rather indicates he didnt want to defend a failed explanation and didnt dare join DK.
          Americans dont need to wait for any authority to instruct them what to do. Breaking out of intellectual isolation and talk to those who might be able to provide useful insight would be good for all involved.
          Scientific experts normally have little contact with the public. True democracy – true popular influence benefits from communication.
          Asking stuped questions is not a crime. Every time you do, you learn something and eventually you will converge unto the right questions.
          Daniel do you personally know of even a single case when the above type of consulting has been tried?

        7. Sorry for not replying earlier. By the way, thank you for quoting from the global Platonic theater and conveying my point to Bill.

          The idea of consulting technical experts to evaluate competing technical hypotheses related to 9/11 is interesting. Alas, they do not collaborate, as 9/11 activists have found when contacting controlled demolition corporations and asking them about the twin towers’ controlled demolition. Assuming they talk to a specific 9/11 activist confidentially and convince her/him of some important technical finding, Chomsky and his accomplices, i.e. all the world’s bully pulpits, will have a field day dismissing the confidential communications’ authenticity. (S)he’ll know something, but the world won’t benefit from it, and even independent-minded 9/11 activists may not follow her/his leadership. Thinking of it, your proposed approach may work with the signers of AE911Truth’s petition, who seem to not be afraid of being ostracized within their own professional organizations, but you may not like that idea since most of them probably support AE911Truth’s findings. Catch-22…

          A more promising and much more useful approach involving experts is to expose them as censors, like what your comment conveniently reminded me to follow up on with some apparent professional obfuscator doubling as an Australian professor of civil engineering:,%20Handling/Challenging%20on%20censorship/building%207/universities/auckland/thread.htm.

          Activism that does not take into account the existence of the global Platonic theater will usually yield only limited accomplishments. Accordingly, the best 9/11 outreach is not the one that has the most technically correct and complete controlled demolition theory, but the one that Chomsky and other controlled disinformation experts cannot contradict without appearing mentally challenged and therefore will fear. Here, the AE911Truth approach is clearly superior, as it does not rely on technologies unknown to mainstream engineers, is essentially compatible with the macroscopic evidence, and is uniquely easy to teach. By contrast, a 9/11 outreach campaign based on Khalezov’s or Wood’s theories is an open invitation for even an amateurish reporter of a small newspaper to get promoted by simply running a hit piece centered on the non-stupid argument that the local university’s professors state that they know nothing of the alleged technology.

          Linking this back to the article’s topic and at the risk of engaging into more self-promotion, if you keep plowing through the global Platonic theater, you will be rewarded towards the end with a modest 9/11 treat unmasking Chomsky’s role.


        8. Not sure if I believe your part about the absence of skepticism from our presumed enemies.

          Russian General Calls 9/11 inside job:

          RT, a Russian government funded news agency has recently called 9/11 an inside job:

          But Puts says no way:

          Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says inside job:

          I don’t know, its not that easy to call.

        9. I was thinking of Daniel Noels overview about this subject :

          3.8 Foreign Governments Have Failed to Bark
          Foreign governments have also essentially embraced the official 9/11 myth. Curiously, even so-called “rogue” governments and potentates, who supposedly are in the U.S. government’s cross-hairs, are not afraid of lying, and have a vested interest in precipitating a huge political crisis in Washington, have toed the official 9/11 line. It is remarkable that leaders such as Chávez in Venezuela, Castro in Cuba and Ahmadinejad in Iran have made statements along the lines of 9/11 Truth, but with debilitating limitations
          Read more there about Ahmadinejads less than effective criticism

  24. I saw that video.Wanted to reach through the screen and throttle this disinfo moron.Is that the approach these turds take now? Forget trying to have a meaningful discussion-just poo poo it into obscurity with one dismissive wave.The epitome of “head down,keep grazing”-SMH….

    1. Ah! Yes Mike, Uncle Noam offers assurance that head down grazing is normal. “Don’t look up, I’ll do the critical thinking….your conscience is now clear because of your reverence and adoration for me”
      This continuous “dose and response” cycle between the elected and the sheep is a disease.

      1. That’s it in a nutshell. Well said. Let’s obviate our thoughts to “the experts”. What do I know? Why,,,,,he’s a linguist!” I know better than to try to fool him!

        This brand of intellectual snobbery is like NPR on steroids. It is full of presumptions that simply are not true. Like many, he makes logical arguments. Unfortunately they are often based on drivel.

        So, for me, if I cared, the only question is, is he an apologist knowingly, or does he buy his own B.S.?

        This is why I keep harping about “credential worship”. It appears that many have a sort of apostle complex that requires them to find someone to follow and hang on every word uttered from the “great one’s” mouth. I think God every day for not being afflicted by this.

        I have several of his books and have a hard time getting through them. I usually put them down unread. It is impossible not to notice that he always ignores the 1,000 lb. elephant in the room. I suspect that is why he is largely left alone to churn out the excruciatingly self-absorbed ramblings he produces.

        Fv has it right. His message is “this is all far too complicated for you eaters. Just crawl back in your respective holes and leave the “thinking” to us experts”.

  25. Here are a couple of videos of Sandy Hook Elementary, with lots of weeds, mold, windows blocked with piles of junk, etc

    And here’s a comment that sums things up perfectly:

    Stephanie Sliwinski23 hours ago (edited)
    Ask ANY teacher, janitor, school administrator, etc it is common practice for public school districts to use a decommissioned school as a storage yard for old furniture and items the district has little use for. This exactly what this is. The Fire Marshall inspects each and every classroom each year (especially THAT close to a fire station where they were driving past it daily) and there is no way in Hell he would approve of all that large and bulky, old furniture boarded up against the windows. What if a fire broke out in the hallway and fire blocked the door? How would small kids escape? The windows at ground level of course. This story stank from the first five minutes. As a former public school teacher for ten years I have never ever seen a working school look like that. Especially not an elementary in an affluent area. Fake fake fake as the day is long.

    Sandy Hook Hoax-The Toxic Hoarders Nest for Kids!

    1. Yes, I agree 100% and I viewed this footage when it was first released. The pink and black bathroom is original to 1956. I do not see any evidence of this school receiving maintenance or remodeling, except for the 50 five gallon paint containers that were clearly visible in the boiler room. In previous posts, we were looking for more information from the time capsule that was supposedly buried in 1980 and was not located prior to the school’s demo.

      I have theorized in prior posts that this school was in fact closed in 1980 for good. It is logical that the time capsule that was buried in 1956 was dug up in 1980 prior to closure, and not buried at all in 1980 as the internet articles claimed.

      The parking lot itself was full of potholes and patches and most likely last steamrolled with blacktop in the late 1970s.

      A drive through town by anyone who studied geography or urban studies will realize that the town population is way less than 1,200, not the 28,000 reported as fact by wiki.

      1. @John Luv- I agree, there’s no evidence or maintenance or remodeling, and there’s simply no way this was an operational school, and no way that people living in million dollar homes would be sending children to a school in such atrocious condition. And I also tend to think that the school may have been closed for decades. On the sandyhooktruth blog that Prof Tracy used to link to (it has since been shut down), back around the time of the event, someone noticed that CYBD (call before you dig) was spray painted on the pavement, which suggests that the school was slated for demolition even before the hoax occurred.

        1. Amanda, I really believe that Newtown is a fake place (ghost town). Yes, it exists on a map and has some history, but it does not house 28,000 people, or even 5% of that total. They easily pulled this event off because there are so few people to keep quiet about it. As far as the million dollar homes, well, many of them are vacant.

          Newtown, CT is the northeast version of Lehigh Acres, Florida. Many who are interviewed refer to Newtown as a quaint town. How many towns do you know of that have a wiki population of 28,000? There are none. A quaint town holds between 20 and 1,200 in population, period. It was probably more heavily populated prior to 1980, and then the population took a serious nose dive for some reason.

          The key to proving this mystery to the completely dumbed down population is to actually get a hard copy of a 1980 newspaper from the Danbury area.

      2. John, have you considered that, maybe, they took pictures at Chalk Hill, (it having been closed for the most part), and said it was “Sandy Hook”?

        As you know, I haven’t made up my mind about this aspect of the plot yet. I’m sure it isn’t as described. I’m hoping to see something that will settle it once and for all.

        I agree that the portion of “Sandy Hook” we’ve been shown is a “Potemkin Village”. I doubt that the whole town isn’t real.

        I’m leaning toward them having some activity, maybe special ed., at SHES up until this event. Of course I’m not sure of that. The pictures are certainly 1950’s era decorating. I also don’t believe they’d let stuff stack up like that in an operating school.

        1. “I’m leaning toward them having some activity, maybe special ed., at SHES up until this event. ”

          I made you a toilet guy re/911, and a parking lot guy on Sandy Hook, lophatt, so I have some persuasive powers with you. Think about it. You have a daughter who probably was special ed. Is there any way imaginable that a rich town could possibly use this facility for that purpose?

          I know that you want to retain your objectivity, until absolute proof is in the bag. Well, this, my friend, is it.

          If that building was used for special ed anytime after the 1970s, anywhere outside Puerto Rico, I’d be shocked.

        2. Well Patrick, I never argued against the toilet theory, I just used other things as examples. Nonetheless, like I said, “maybe” they took footage from Chalk Hill (having been closed except for some business space) and used that. I don’t know.

          As to the rest, I have seen some pretty disgusting schools. Some of them are used for special needs. I can’t rule that out. Actually, the decorations are more compelling than the dirt.

          I have dealt with literally hundreds of renovation projects of one sort or another to old buildings. All of the hand-wringing about asbestos, PCB’s and lead paint doesn’t wash with reality. Those “concerns” usually only come into play when something is remodeled or is damaged and needs repair.

          So long as asbestos is bound up in its normal form, i.e. tiles, mastic, etc., it isn’t dangerous. It’s a different story if you start grinding it, etc., then you need special abatement techniques. This can get very expensive, quickly.

          I am not arguing that it was in use. They SAY it was in use and there are a lot of people involved that would know one way or another. Unless they produce pictures that we have yet to see of the 400+ other kids I would have to assume that, at a minimum, only a handful were there. My concern is the bus drivers, garbage collectors, etc., who would definitely know whether the school was open or not.

          I am certainly not stuck on a theory. I just haven’t seen enough “proof” yet and this doesn’t qualify, at least with me at the moment. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a dump (if that’s what the pictures are actually of).

          Just as a side note, you might be surprised what I’ve seen used for special ed. with my daughter. We’ve had to fight for her rights her entire lifetime. This society eats its young, especially if they are defenseless. This is all carefully overseen by “experts” of course.

    2. Questioningall (Sherrie) makes an excellent point. The famous buzzing-in system at the front door is AWOL! No information sign. No camera. No buzzer.

      I thought the scale of the place was odd for an elementary school – standard basketball hoops in the gym, a huge baseball field, and the bathrooms – hilarious! However, the playground is tiny, new and the little children have to cross traffic to get to it.

      Perhaps they spent a lot of time on the toilets because they remembered to fill them. They forgot to do that in the Lanza house. Dry toilets…..hmmmm. OOooops.

      The cafeteria is probably full of crap too, so they just show a corner of it.

      There’s something about Fairfield Hills.

      It has been the site of Pat Llodra’s office. She’s getting new neighbors. The 14,500 sq ft neoclassical Newtown Volunteer Fire and Ambulance building is under construction now – and looks like it belongs along the Mall in Washington DC. It’s on the grounds of the Fairfield Hills Asylum, which is not centrally located within the area it serves.

      The new 12 million multi-year GE funded community center is also planned for construction on the Fairfield Hills site.

      In 2017, Newtown plans to build a 30,000 sq ft police station. Where? You guessed it – Fairfield Hills.

      1. Sandy, good points. They made quite a fuss about the “security upgrades”. Where are they? I also don’t get the “redacted” footage. But, as we’ve seen throughout, you can splice anything together.

        With me I know that it isn’t as described. We obviously did not see pictures of hundreds of “evacuees” even though they claimed that happened. The simplest explanation is that it was a drill at an unused school. I don’t have a problem with that, I just wonder about the “uninvolved” people it takes to support a working school keeping quiet.

        The second part (for me) is that the school isn’t the central issue. It is important, but somewhat peripheral. Of course, if we had absolute ironclad proof that it was not in use they would have a lot of explaining to do.

        That would mean that the teachers, administrators, maintenance people, etc., were all “in on it”, or didn’t exist. I can buy the didn’t exist, scenario more easily than I can the collusion. Even at that, the newspaper and the others who claimed to know the principal and the teachers would all be guilty of collusion.

        Normally (whatever that means), it is wise to keep those “in the know” to a minimum. You can have many players but they only know what they are being asked to do, not why. I can see them being given parts in a drill and playing their roles. Later, they would be visited about keeping their mouths shut.

        I’m still weighing the school. It is the simplest explanation for having demolished it. Still, when redacting video why would they show the obvious problem areas? The security stuff is a mishmash of misinformation. Everything from the cameras to the door locks.

        They had a year to put something convincing together. The fact that they did not confirms my theory that this is the point. “You will believe us, no matter what”. The report is them wagging their middle finger at us.

        1. The ability of the government, mainstream media and academic assets like Chomski, to reconstruct reality, is coming to an end, since they can no longer control information.

          They have pushed too far, for too long, and have gone over the edge with the Sandy Hook massacre. The secret legislation, and five-year prison sentence for accessing what should be public records relating to Sandy Hook, is the cherry on top. There are enough good people in government to end this, and they are about to do just that. The Connecticut Legislature won’t be debating gun control this term. Instead, key legislators want to revisit the Newtown midnight strike, and make those records freely accessible.

          It’s time for Norm to go quietly into that good night… so that we can rewrite history – this time for accuracy

        2. Not watching TV and not being concerned with overt Hollywood and the goings on there, I wonder if Sandy Hook The Movie was up for any Oscar nominations in the fiction category.

        3. Lophatt, I know the former Newtown school superindentdnt does exist. I knew her when we were neighbors on the same street. At that time she was traveling the country selling her education program. There is no way any of this could happen on her watch without her knowledge.

          I also knew the next door neighbor of the Hockleys. Apparently the Hockley family has moved to a new location, but not out of the limelight sorry to say. The neighbor was interviewed and made some bizarre statements about ducks. When I knew her she did not live in Sandy Hook. The photographer who vanished on his bike and found a week later in the lake went to school with my daughter in Brookfield. So some of the names are connected to real people.

          Connecticut’s former republican governor has lived in Brookfield for decades, a town I mentioned previously connected to Sandy Hook. Jodi Rell, the former governor, was lieutenant governor when then governor Rowland was jailed. Thus she replaced him and was elected later for a new term. I believe she is among the few honest politicians who ever saw daylight. They could not have pulled this stunt with her in office, they had to wait for the current governor.

        4. Lophatt-you are exactly right about school staff not being accounted for in this story. I am assuming that SHE had a cafeteria? Maybe almost a dozen people working there? A few who would have been on the clock in the beginning of the day. Where are these people? The bus driver was featured in a story about her and her husband’s problem as owner operators being replaced by another company. She was also an Adam spotter. I don’t think SH was a functioning school for these reasons, the physical condition, and the non-activity of the web page 4 years previous to 2012. It makes me think Sandy Hook is a set.

        5. Susan A. – thanks for mentioning this. I was not aware. It seems difficult to locate a DVD, but can be seen on YouTube. The author, Tom Tryon, was from Hartford, CT. VHS is for sale on Amazon, but expensive.

          “Disillusioned with acting, Tryon retired from the profession in 1969 and began writing horror and mystery novels. He was successful, overcoming skepticism about a classically handsome movie star suddenly turning novelist. His best-known work is The Other (1971), about a boy whose evil twin brother may or may not be responsible for a series of deaths in a small rural community in the 1930s. He adapted his novel into a film released the following year, which starred Diana Muldaur, Uta Hagen, and John Ritter. Harvest Home (1973), about the dark pagan rituals being practiced in a small New England town, was adapted as The Dark Secret of Harvest Home (1978), a television mini-series starring Bette Davis.”

        6. According to alleged custodian Rick Thorne, he saw someone running outside the gym. From what I can tell, if images are from SHES, the gym had no windows low enough to see outside.

          The cafeteria staff? Good point. They were hiding in another closet, never found and shipped off to China with SHES demolition debris.

        7. Newtown is a “small rural community” and that sums it up perfectly. There is absolutely no way there are 28,000 people living there as reported, period. No way at all! The population is way under 1,000, and perhaps way under 500 too! Check out this realtor sales pitch on Newtown, CT made in the summer of 2013 and tell me there is a population of 28,000!

        8. Susan, thank you. You’ve summed up my dilemma. Early on I used to say “its the stuff you DON’T see that’s telling”. In a “real” event you know they’d be interviewing those “cafeteria workers” and bus drivers. Where did they go?

          What I’ve tried to say is that I can’t “categorically” rule out some activity at the school just because I haven’t seen certain things. I think it is certainly suspicious.

          It would be far easier to carry out a drill in an abandoned school. That certainly could be the case here. Of course, all those workers and vendors, etc., would know that the school wasn’t operational. The fact that none of them has come forward is as surprising as the event itself.

          They have said that the school was staffed with teachers. We have only been “shown” a hand-picked assortment. Where are the others? Certainly, as Anne mentions, the district would be aware of the missing teachers.

          I have also said that I’m not surprised if local residents don’t know much about SHES. I know I don’t know much about the schools around me even though my wife retired from the local school district.

          Every aspect of this tale “reeks”. I am not saying that it was absolutely “open” for business. I just hate categorical statements if they can’t be proven.

          I would say “categorically”, that they didn’t pronounce dead kids and let them lie on the floor all night. I will say that they didn’t conduct autopsies in the parking lot. For those reasons I doubt that any kids or adults were shot. They simply held a drill and declared it to be “real”.

          That being the case, the truly bizarre part is the post-action drill. All of the liars and support for them is beyond surprising. I would like to believe that money or fear would not make co-conspirators out of people. I guess I’m wrong.

          The “media” and the politicians are professional liars. I expect that. Of course the actors are just doing their jobs. But, like the other events, the ones shown over and over are small in number. It’s those missing “little people” who would normally have their ten minutes of fame that we don’t see.

          So maybe Anne is on to something. Maybe they decided to bring a novel “to life” as a drill scenario. That is the sort of behavior that is responsible for the “creep factor” in a lot of Stephan King” books. Whole towns acting in strange ways.

          I guess keeping little people off the airwaves is easy, keeping them off the internet is more difficult. It would be hard to go to work every day if I were a local school bus driver knowing that this story was totally bogus. If I were slinging burritos at another school and knew that SHES had been closed for years would I keep that to myself? Maybe! It seems hard to believe.

        9. John, as I said previously, the town I live in is much like Newtown in layout. There are approximately 20,000 here too if you count those outside the city limit.

          Anne would know. She used to live very near there and knew people there. She has a fine mind and has been very helpful in understanding this thing. She is not given to wild speculation but is open to suggestions.

          I was among the first to call it a “Potemkin Village” on the Sandy Hook Truth site. My meaning was somewhat different than what you describe. I didn’t mean that it was “uninhabited”.

          I lived in a very picturesque town of approximately 500 people once. They filmed several movies there. I was always surprised by what they can do in the cutting room. They can make it big or small, change the configuration of things, etc.. No matter what they “show” on the screen, the town remained the same in real life.

          There is nothing like visiting a place to be able to put it into perspective. I’m too far away to do that now. If work brings me back to Connecticut in the future I’ll make a point to go see for myself. It wouldn’t tell me everything I need to know, but it would set the stage.

        10. Driving through Newtown – the borough, the hamlets and miscellaneous neighborhoods is not done in a jiffy. The area encompasses almost 60 square miles, most of it off the main roads. Newtown is not a tourist destination and residents there have to travel elsewhere for major shopping. One is not likely to see many people while driving through town for these reasons alone, and also due to Newtown being a bedroom community for the larger cities in that part of Connecticut and NYC as well.

          While living in Connecticut for many years, and also through work, I came in contact with many prominent residents of Newtown. Some were eccentric, but not criminals. I left Connecticut in 2005 and still have ties there through old friends, my daughter’s friends and property there. The mafia is well represented in the state and even they would not pull a stunt like Sandy Hook. So something happened in recent years with a trail all the way to DC via Hartford. Why Connecticut? The state is small enough to manage from inside and outside, and close enough to NYC and the media there. And yes, there are some spooky areas that I can attest to personally, not criminal, just spooky.

          Tom Tryon, whose book “Harvest Home” was made into the TV miniseries “The Dark Secret of Harvest Home” with an all star cast, had this to say about his home state Connecticut:

          “I have always felt there is that kind of steely, irony, dark, spare, sparse Hawthorne-ish aspect of New England which goes back to our Puritan forebears,” Tryon told a Courant interviewer in 1989, the year “The Night of the Moonbow” was published. “There are pockets in the region that just seem made for that sort of dark horror story.” “The Night of the Moonbow,” another psychological thriller with an adolescent boy at its center, also had a Connecticut setting — Camp Friend, indeed modeled after Camp Woodstock, the YMCA camp that Tryon attended as a boy.

        11. Lophatt, Anne, et al, I have been through Newtown last week. I spent about 20 minutes driving around town. I challenge anyone to find me just 2,800 people in those 60 sq. miles. That place is deserted. I stopped for gas at a Sunoco at 1pm on a Friday, and there was just 1 other car there from out of state. That was the only gas station that I found in the entire 28,000 population in a town called Newtown.

          From now on, I will refer to Newtown as the quaint town that just isn’t there. In my short time there, I passed one state trooper vehicle. I did not see any vehicles designating Newtown Proper on the vehicles. In fact, I did not see many other vehicles on the cleared roads in that jurisdiction. 28,000 people???? Where do they live, underground?

          Perhaps Friday, Feb 28th was a holiday in Newtown. Yes, it is there, and yes it is quaint. Where I live, there is a population of 14,000 and for all intents and purposes, it appears 50 times larger than Newtown..

        12. John, my understanding on the topic of: “how does Newtown manage the lie” focuses on two areas:
          The first is that The Board of Selectmen form of government can easily become insulated and autonomous. This happens in towns spread over 60 sq. miles or smaller. The power of money is included here. Reference: the on-line 2014 Newtown Budget is 39 million. Police, Fire and Emergency Communications accounts for 8.2. Highway accounting for 6.4.
          Importantly, retirement contributions for all departments (which includes- tax assessors, tax collection and IT) have gone up 20-43% .
          Unreported Soft money may also be a strong influencer as well as we have discussed.

          The second understanding is that the community spirits of the Sandy Hook Elementary students, teachers and families is non-existent because the School was in some large degree “in active”. As we have all discussed previously the evidence of an “active SHE community” expressing their collective consciousness and political/legal outrage has never surfaced.

        13. John Luv, thanks for the update of your drive through Newtown. You are describing the town I remember, little or no traffic. It has always been like that and adds to the charm of small town living. Drive through any of the small towns in the region and the traffic is next to nothing.

          The subject of Sandy Hook and Newtown is more than exposing a major fraud, hoax, illusion – whatever the event can be called. It is also, and just as important, the discovery of the region and its residents. Why here and how did they pull it off? Complicity among local residents and officials? Complicity runs a straight line from Hartford to DC, that much we can be sure of. But locals at the center of this plot? That I find more interesting than politicians on state and federal stages and well known media personalities. We know they are propped up on green cushions as long as they toe the line.

          Verifying the real population number of Newtown, and all hamlets and neighborhoods within, may not be easy. I do not endorse the official story regarding the 12/14/12 event and the lies and cover up that followed. They may even lie about the number of residents, but proving that takes some effort. For instance, the least populous town in Fairfield County is Sherman with an official number of 3,581 residents as of 2010. Stepping into Sherman is like being set back 100 years in time and one would be hard pressed to imagine almost 3,600 souls (rich souls) living there.

          “Sherman is the northernmost and least populous town of Fairfield County, Connecticut, United States. The population was 3,581 at the 2010 census.[1] The town was formed in 1802 from the northern part of New Fairfield. It is named for New Haven’s Founding Father, Roger Sherman”

          It would be an interesting task to take on the Newtown population number. However, there is more than one gas station in town. During a quick search I found five. The still missing Mr. Hoagland was last seen at a Mobil gas station on Church Hill Road by others than a son and a neighbor with a puppy. So we are told. Here is an informative link showing Newtown’s largest employers and largest tax payers:

          Iroquois Gas Transmission System is among the largest taxpayers and Newtown Board of Education is the largest employer.

        14. fv and Anne, I don’t have a response to John as he seems to have made up his mind. That’s fine. It doesn’t matter (in my view). I, like Anne, don’t believe this codswallop either. Like fv, I think his explanation is accurate. If there are no real “players” it isn’t hard to keep “them” quiet.

          As Anne says, this runs all the way to the Puzzle Palace. No one involved has any reason to fear prosecution. Who would do that?

          Like I’ve said a number of times, the description of Newtown sounds very much like where I live. I grew up in a big city so I know the difference. I lived in a real “rural” area for a while and it is quite different from where I live now. It “appears” to be rural here.

          There are only two gas stations in my town. The “official” population is around 8,000. There are nearly 12,000 living all around it outside the city limits. You would not know that driving by because there are trees that hide the houses. People go to a neighboring town to shop.

          At any rate, that “lack of cohesion” makes it perfect for this type of thing. People live like this because they don’t want to bumping into people everywhere they go.

          More and more I’m thinking that the school was not in use. The problem is that I don’t have anything “definitive” there. Just the appearance. I freely admit that it would make their jobs a lot easier if it were closed. That just leaves all the others who would know that was a lie.

    3. Amanda4321,
      As a Teacher of English (now retired) for 33 years in a rather well-to-do Westchester, NY public high school, I can tell you that there is NO WAY that the classrooms depicted in the official SHES videos could pass that annual inspection. My classroom was on the first floor and, as all areas of instruction on the main level, nothing was allowed to be placed up against the windows which, as you point out, were actually labeled as the “EGRESS” in the event that the doorways were blocked.

      Can you just imagine an emergency with 20+ children in each of these classrooms in a panic trying to climb and fight their way over the mass of furniture and clutter shoved up against those windows? I’d love to have Sandy Hook Fire Chief William Sheridan sit down in room with a few of us from this blog and listen to him try to explain to us how an “active” school with these obviously blatant violations was able to pass his inspection.

      1. It’s easy to pass a fire inspection when the actual population of a town is way under 500 people, not the 28,000 that is reported by wiki. I drove through that place on my way back from a business trip in MA last week, and I must say, Newtown is very quaint, just as described. There are not 28,000 people to keep quiet about this hoax, just under 500. That is how it was easily orchestrated.

  26. Marilyn – have occasionally noticed the moderation message and it will especially happen with a lot of links, it will come through.

    “Dr. Charles Krauthammer calls the white-coated scientists who claim to know exactly what will happen 50 years from now “white-coated propagandists.” (The Myth of Settled Science, Washington Post, February 20, 2014)” Love that – white coated propagandists!

    Admire Dr. Krauthammer very much, he sees the truth so clearly. Most do not realize he had a terrible accident and was paralyzed from the chest down just before college. He did not let that stop him. He points out there is a new program that allows Obama to hand states billions in funds – it is called Climate Resiliency!

    Could not comprehend how the evil doers could be so despicable to ruin their own neighborboods with manmade disasters. Suppose the answer is as always – follow the money.

    1. My brother was paralyzed at the same age and can appreciate a little bit how hard the obstacles were, especially back when there was no thought of handicap accessibility.

      These articles are talking about man made manipulation of weather and the made up science of global warming that has only served to make the rich ultra rich and the poor and middle class, much poorer

      There are finally msm stories appearing that they are seeding rain clouds to solve our droughts. When the masses find out much of our terrible weather was produced intentionally, there will be a mass awakening.

      Do not agree with wars anywhere, but am most concerned about this war against America!

      Not many days in my previously mostly blue skies turn white with all the criss crossing of the jets and their poison. How has your weather been lately?

      Perhaps you cannot even bother to read the articles as you have preconceived notions that only your thoughts can be tolerated.

  27. I know this sounds weird but both Chomsky and Alex Cockburn, who were intellectual associates, both considered that elements of the US power system engaged in homicidal conspiracies, provided that the victims were non-White people. Chomsky was willing to concede that Martin Luther King’s death was the result of a conspiracy, and Cockburn suggested that Paul Robeson was poisoned by the CIA.

    This racial discrimination in conspiracy theories is not accidental. Revealing the killing of White people is much more inflammatory and detrimental and de-legitimating to the power system than killing non-Whites. And, in my opinion, it was the defense of the power system that caused both truthers to pooh-pooh conspiracy theories. They create a (deserved) distrust of power.

    1. —————————————-

      Bill Moyers had a great discussion on the unconscious expression of racism on last night’s PBS show. Racism can be easily relegated
      to subliminal thoughts; politicians know this and use what the guest described as “strategic racism” to garner votes. Reagan was a master at this technique. Mit Romney employed it also. Both men were seen as nice guys and had to come at the issue sideways to avoid criticism.

      Example: Reagan would incite the middle class by intoning that while waiting in a super market line, some working man was buying hamburger while the black “buck” ahead bought steak with food stamps. He had to amp that down and decided to say “the young man” in front…” Aim was to imply hard working men and women were paying for slackers of color.


      1. Racism: Loyalty; Necessary, Axiomatic Virtue

        Well Marilyn: things get “subliminal,” as u put it, when u REFUSE to think and analyze by means of conscious reason. Ck the dictionary: racism is LOYALTY, pure and simple, to ancestors, people, and culture–it’s a great virtue–not only that, but it’s actually AXIOMATIC, either-or; u cannot NOT be loyal, hence racist, either to mixed or non-mixed races. Race is actually just extended family. And racial loyalty doesn’t necessarily mean one believes in extermination, etc., of any other race.

        Observe present top powers are visibly stoking race-war, encouraging blacks to murder whites, this fm MSNBC and CNN, to name just two sources. Obongo himself blames his present drop in approval ratings to “racism,” this “racism,” he invokes in ur “subliminal” sense–meaning, presumably, irrational hatred, etc.

      2. I’m sure he was trying to exhilarate some resentment in the middle class towards the bottom but it is not really racist at all unless the person having these thoughts only applies them to certain races of people. Here in Oregon it isn’t the mexicans that I see buying all these expensive grocery’s, despite the massive influx of illegals, it’s the hippies. People that I know damn well are growing dope seem to have no qualms about sucking off the public coffer since their income is off the record. This breeds massive resentment with people who work their ass off just to be getting by. Is it racist? no. In many ways I don’t blame these people because it’s not like the government is going to return any unused funds but the working people don’t see it that way, they think they are paying for the others food. In reality they are slaves to the state regardless and they fail to see it. If it wasn’t social programs the government used as an excuse to extract wealth it would be something else. I hate to agree with ApTrollonian but the working class really needs to understand how we are all literal slaves to the federal reserve bank.

        1. Exactly, met a fine young [twenty something] man working hard on the road to support his two kids and wife. He had a brilliant idea that of course will never fly, only those who actually pay taxes should be allowed to vote!

          He makes good money but is not rich, works hard and travels a lot to do so.

          His younger sister and her Mexican boyfriend with 4 children asked for his counseling on how to manage their money. They put it all out there, she makes $17,000, he is going to college for free, they get all the benefits of being poor, credit card intended for food but there is no control at the atm, health care, etc and get a $15,000 refund.

          They spend their entire refund on their annual Disneyland vacation and eat out, two times a day! His mother does not know why he wants his free education, as the more money you make, the less you get!

          Seems the only way out of this mess is for a total collapse. There should be no rewards for having more kids you cannot support or not getting married. There is no way pot heads should get a lifetime subsidy, we are the stupid ones here and indeed are the slaves.

          Let’s go back to those food stamps that actually only bought food and those distribution centers where the poor could get a hunk of cheese, beans and peanut butter!

      3. ====================

        This is a very bad oops on my part and may seem insignificant, but is central to the point and is inexcusible. Sorry:

        In the last paragaph re Bill Moyers’ show, third line–take out the word ‘black.’ After thinking about it, Reagan would not have been that obvious. He said young buck–but the racial slur is so
        ingrained in our thinking, everyone knew he referenced a black man.(Going from memory–faulty memory)

  28. The major damage that Chomsky and the other pseudo-radical anti-conspiracists do is to ideologically disarm the American people. In order for the people to unite effectively against anti-people power, it is necessary to conceptually distinguish the general population ruled by power sharply from the ruling gang of the power system. By denying that elements of American power engage in homicidal conspiracies, it tends to sanitize the power system, which is drifting historically toward a kind of Freedom fascism.

    The anti-conspiracism of the mainstream Left combined with the cultural racism of the mainstream Right combines to prevent a people’s ideology forming that effectively unites Americans against anti-people American power. What is left is the piggishness of the Republican party complimented by the cowardliness of the Democrats.

    This bi-partisan political system, financed by the plutocracy in the USA in the same way that the Oligarchs of the Ukraine finance the neo-Nazi parties, create in the USA an ideological conspiracy of Freedom, Equality& Democracy which is the historical myth. Chomsky and pseudo-radicals support the media truth shills in maintaining this myth, which the population cannot break through.

    The American myth is buttressed by marxsm, which was the major world social theory of the 20th century. A new ideology is in a process of formation in the 21st century which includes aspects of Marxism, but also incorporates the anti-marxist George Orwell. To further the formation of this emerging ideology, containing aspects of both the left and right, it is necessary to discredit the anti-conspiracists like Chomsky. Power has always conspired against the people, and the people must understand it. Otherwise we are driving into the storms, gale, and darkness of the future with our headlights off.

    1. Funny how he doesn’t give his real name in the interview. I couldn’t listen past 5 minutes. But I find it interesting that he says he’s NOT “young and dumb, and doesn’t know anything…”

      Fooled me.

  29. ————————————-

    For Patrick in his last message to me. You bring up so many points, it would take a whole day to research and successfully agree or rebutt.

    Mainly, I see a difference in my own views and those of the established two -party system. Vast difference. Main reason I now am an independent voter, not that the stance will merit me much as the possibilities have dwindled to a trickle of valid choices. Heaven forbid I would throw in with the Obama kooks. What a cabal of incompetents. Didn’t buy his shtick from day one. And when Henry KIssinger said Obama was a game changer on the international stage, it proved how correct I was. Anything KIssinger endorses, I oppose.

    But correct me if I’m wrong: you are hung up on Abe LIncoln. He seems to be the starting point for all of our ills. That does not compute either historically or logically, IMO. As pointed out earlier, what led up to the Civil War was in no way Lincoln’s doing. The country was not securely grounded in a stable economy and we fought constantly over the issue of slavery right up to his first inauguration. I think his reputation is besmirched by Southerners who wish to duck responsibility for their failed coup d’etat.

    They hold onto a past that never existed except in their minds. Defeat is never easy to accept but mature men will come to terms. Rockwell dwells on this era and chips away at the truth. He uses his fantasy to push his own agenda which is libertarianism. It gives him a strong sense of self and purpose, though it is not so practical a system for governing.

    Below is a link among many that debunks the no-government thesis. Your swing into American destruction of native peoples appears to be an attempt to divert attention from your own political ideas. True, it is a sad phase in our history but Lincoln did not institute or condone the practice. Nor was he in charge of the powerful forces that engineered our industrial revolution. No president has been able to bring them to heel. Teddie Roosevelt had minimal success but they recovered and prevailed.

    Pretty straight forward with no frills. This is how I view a sticky wicket.
    We need regulation; corporations are poor self-regulators. HIstory has proven that to be the case. And thank goodness for Teddie Roosevelt–the breaker of monopolies and thwarter of Robber Barons.

    1. “their failed coup d’etat”

      What planet did you live on when they were teaching American history, Marilyn? A coup is the overthrow and replacement of an existing government. The South did not attack the North, had absolutely no desire to occupy Washington and certainly did not wish to rule the North.

      Was it a coup when the colonies broke away from Britain? No one in the colonies proposed invading London and ruling Britain in place of the King.

      How is this so difficult for you to understand? The South simply wanted to leave the union they had freely joined, leaving the government in Washington behind, entirely peacefully. Maybe you have never read these words: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…”. They are the first words of the Declaration of Independence. Do you disagree with them?

      As for the article you link to, at each and ever turn, as I read it, I spoke back to the text, saying “I reject the assumptions that underly the assertion you are making.” It is one long string of staw men. I don’t refute straw men.

      As for the Indians, I have mentioned here many times that it was Lincoln’s GENERALS who destroyed the Indians west of the Mississippi, using all the genocidal tools they developed as they were utterly destroying the South; Lincoln, of course, was dead by then. They were tasked to do this because Eastern railroad barrens wanted that land for themselves. Lincoln was their lawyer, and they were the forces that created the Republican party, just for him. Everyone knew what he was about, who he represented, and what he intended to do, which is why he received not a single electoral vote from any Southern state. The moment he won, those states decided to hand him a copy of the Declaration of Independence–they wanted nothing to do with what he represented.

      You say ” it is a sad phase in our history.” That’s like saying Mao’s engineered famine ” is a sad phase in China’s history,” and the Soviet gulag ” it is a sad phase in Russian history.” “Sad”? I’d suggest using a word that is a tad stronger. How about “inexcusable”? Or, entirely “avoidable”? “Completely unjustifiable”? Better still, “A crime against humanity”?

      Those lands should today be independent Indian countries, for the most part. It is the legacy of dishonest Abe that made that not happen.

      1. —————————————-
        And Patrick you actually believe the Southerners–who were so benign in purpose–would have stopped at the Mason-Dixon Line and not have attempted to impose their own belief system on the North? Well, it would have been and improbable task to set up cotton plantations in the Midwest, but I am confident some other cash crop might have sufficed–with slave labor.


        It boggles the mind how you are so in contempt of Lincoln. This is what motivates my defense. It is interesting you do point out that he was dead when most of the Indian massacres occurred; however, you do not point out that the slaughter came from both sides. Innocents died due to policies implemented after his death. The Sioux in the Black Hills–best example.

        As far as his setting up the railroad development, do you blame Eisenhower for signing the Federal Highway Aid Act of 1956 into law? You might argue that did not displace thousands of land owners but who knows how many were driven off by the eminent doman laws, their property seized for less than market value in most cases.? (See the Texas Intercontental Highway for some more stats on this process of government’s right to take private property) Lincoln may have been a bit preoccupied; you recall a little war with the South, don’t you, which encompassed his entire term in office? There is a need to delegate some administrative duties under pressure.

        Many blame our CIA (and Britain’s MI6 and Belgium officials) for the death of Patrice Lumumba, the first president of the Republic of Congo. Or the death of Vietnam’s president and his brother–the Ngo Dinh Diem oligarchs. All of these extrajudicial assassinations were under the Kennedy watch. Did he actually order them or was he just a victim of world chaos? Did he say the wrong words to the wrong people who became jury and executioner? Just wondering.

        My point remains that your constant rants against Lincoln are irrational. And it is my belief they spring from the libertarian view of history that is used to incite people toward an agenda I find
        untenable at best and pernicious at worst.

        Here is a more objective take on Lincoln and native Americans.

        No strawman here; just the facts. I have a longer essay on why the Libertarian platform won’t work but the first was much more succinct. I will find it for you if you wish to educate yourself.


        1. My opinion of Lincoln is anything BUT irrational, Marilyn. He was openly a tyrant. Leaving aside the fact that he illegally, unconstitutionally, waged war against the American people, killing 800,000 go them, he illegally, unconstitutionally, broke the western half of Virginia away to create an extra state that would be on his side; he illegally, unconstitutionally, jailed thousands of citizens because he disagreed with their opions–without allowing them to see a judge; he threatened to arrest the chief justice of the Supreme Court; he jailed, and then deported (to Canada) an Ohio congressman because he kept talking about these usurpations on the floor of Congress; he illegally, unconstitutionally, closed dozens of newspapers because they wrote things he did not like.

          What is irrational is the mindless adulation of such a tyrant that Americans are taught. To compare the use of the Union army for the express purpose of slaughtering and enslaving entire nations to make way for the projects of Eastern railroad barons to building highways within our own country is preposterous. It would have been an apt comparison if Ike slaughtered the Mexicans and put the survivors in concentration camps to build highways in Mexico, and for Americans to repopulate those evacuated lands.

          How you can justify Lincoln’s war, and brush away what his generals did to the Indians in its aftermath is what boggles MY mind.

        2. ——————————————

          OKay, Uncle! I concede the term ‘coup d’etat’ does not exacty fit the little scrimish known as the “War of Northern Aggression.” Or as you name it, “Lincoln’s War.” (I see it as a stupid bid to enhance and hold power.)

          But in the course of human events, ‘stuff’ happens and it falls to a president to handle those events as best he can under the circumstances fate allows. FDR interned Japanese-Americans (which was actually the grand idea of one of his aids who just happened to be sympathetic to NAZIs. If memory serves, it was McCloy.) ‘Stuff’ happens. Due to the German fifth column operating in the US, FDR sensed a similar Axis underground operation on the West Coast was possible. Another black eye on American history which was perpetrated against innocents. In war, caution is thrown to the winds; individual rights fall in favor of the ‘greater good.’ With the Rebels infiltrating the heart of the Nation’s capital, I imagine Lincoln was a bit paranoid. Who is to say that his own administration wasn’t disloyal? Few people of that time admired him, seeing him an outsider and ugly poseur.

          But he held firm to the belief the Union was worth saving. I feel he was right; you seem to disagree. A tyrant may be in the mind of the beholder, as is the hero. The Lincoln Memorial is one of our most honored reminders of his sacrifice. Recall the saying: one terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter–depending upon your political view? Since when has life ever been easy or uncomplicated? And find me a situation more complicated than a civil war.

          ‘Stuff’ happens. We must sort out the wheat from the chaff and make informed decisions.

          Also, I would be most happy if you would read this long but brilliant essay on Libertarian philosophy and why it is not viable in a modern world. Good government is essential. With “good.” being the operative word.

          Thanks for listening….

        3. I must confess that I had to quit 2/3 the way through, and his gross over simplifications and mischaracterizations grew too bald to put up with, so perhaps he pulled himself back together and returned to the more-or-less level-headed first third or so of the piece.

          He clearly does have some grasp of the elements of modern libertarian theory, but his grasp of history is either poor or intentionally misrepresented to mislead. That is, while an honest libertarian would probably say that aside from the snotty tone, and his cherry-picking quotes out of context, the guy more or less accurately portrays what the Lew Rockwell crowd believe. His treatment of the things establishment Republicans say that are more-or-less libertarian sound pretty good; he almost makes the opposite case, which he must have detected, because that’s when he switches gears and pretty much lies about all the historical applications (intentional, selective omission of the context is a lie, to offer one way he does this). An example is the ridiculous idea that libertarianism can countenance involuntary slavery: the core principle of libertarianism is the Nonaggression Principle, which holds that one must not intentionally harm another, or force someone to do anything against their will.

          Or the lie that Republicans tried to reduce spending on the welfare state. This has never happened, nor will it: the Rs are just as evil as the Ds, and their power comes from making more and more people dependent on the state. If they SAY the right thins about this, and have no intention of actually trying to do it (100% of the time, that’s the case), they are more evil than the Ds-which is quite a handy trick.

          His best point is the one I make myself most of the time: Rothbard, et. al. are dreamers. The world is saturated with sin, and it must be dealt with.

          His second best point is that the offshoring of jobs is insane, and the libertarians are crazy to support it. Lew publishes Pat Buchanan’s column frequently, but hates Pat’s position on the subject. Pat is, in my opinion, the correct one.

          You can agree with this guy if you want, Marilyn, but realize it is a very dishonest attack.

        4. Patrick, that is a great article. That’s it “exactly”. We’re all “the South” now, and they aren’t gonna leave us alone either.

    1. Wow, this is chilling. I am in Gainesville, myself, and saw a bunch of cop cars and an ambulance speeding around yesterday morning.

      But the students are on spring break at UF, and this stabbing supposedly occurred at 7:00 a.m. So…any witnesses?

    2. Wow, the police immediately started to chase the suspect! They were right there when it happened, is suppose. Imagine that! How fortunate!

      Then they lost him in the chase, but found him again in a parking lot. And fool that he was, he stopped his car, got out with his trusty hatchet, and ran at the policemen, who shot to kill, because he was carrying a hatchet.


      1. I have just tried to chase down some of these details. I was given this Ben Tobias to speak to, at the GPD, and he answered “I don’t know” as to almost every question–including, “Where is the Police Dept.’s impound lot?” (I later found out where that was from the city’s parking bureau and called the towing service, who told me the vehicle is in an enclosed secured area until the investigation is finished). He also said “I don’t know” when I asked him what his car had been crashed into, or where–yet have just seen Tobias interviewed on the Gainesville Sun’s website, where he says the jeep was crashed into a white car on Archer Rd.

        I’m still “on the case,” but, as you can see, am being stonewalled. Not a single witness is named in the newspaper report. Tobias would not give me any witnesses’ names, or let me speak to any of the detectives working the case or give me *their* names. They won’t give me the dispatch tapes, or anything. Tobias said there was no 911 call. He said no GPD people interviewed the stabbing victim: that was all UF campus police (whom I haven’t contacted yet).

        I find it hard to believe that the police abandoned their chase when Cravey was driving the wrong way on Newberry Rd.–a busy street–and running red lights.

        Interestingly, Tobias said he knows Michael’s brother (but then would not give me his name). I assume he is in Gainesville.

        Cravey was still alive when he reached the hospital.

        The Gainesville Police Department owns an armored vehicle, by the way, used by its “SWAT team to serve high-risk warrants.” What do they do, wad the paper up and fling it out of the top?

        1. Good work dino! This one should not be able to leave the gate, too bizarre! I listened to an audio of him (Michael) and fwiw he sounded completely rational.

        2. Dinophile, based on analysis of the many previous instances of state sponsored illusions, you are appreciating that the validity of everything reported is questionable. The theatre can easily be the entire story or a fraction thereof. The message of this theatre could be that lunatics subscribe to conspiracy theories and brandish hatchets.

        3. Thanks for the info, Susan, and the reminders about similar events elsewhere, you guys. I think you are on the right track, that he is a disinfo agent.

          Something else that didn’t add up is that the original Gainesville Sun story was published at 8:39 a.m.–before any shooting took place. I called the reporter (a 2013 UF journalism graduate!) yesterday, March 4, around 2:30 p.m., and she said that was when her original story was published, only about the stabbing, based on a Twitter alert from the campus police. I had printed the Sun article out earlier, which says only “published Monday, March 3, 2014 at 8:39 a.m.,”; but by the time I called her at 2:30 p.m., the additional advice “last modified March 3, 2014 at 1:20 p.m.” appeared. She said that her latest modification in fact was around 9:30 p.m., when she added his picture. Anyway, I asked her why the Palm Beach Post had a time of 8:25 a.m. for this story on ITS webpage; and she said, “It was probably reacting to the Twitter alert, too.” However, the Palm Beach Post’s story only references the Gainesville Sun story–which was published at 8:39 a.m.

          I asked if she could access the version of the article she originally posted, and she said she didn’t know how.

          At the least, the Gainesville Sun put false info in, shortly before 2:30 p.m. on March 4, about the time of “last modification” of the story, which the reporter herself was unaware of.

          I am going to email her Scott Creighton’s article and get her reaction.

        4. Perhaps dinophile, you are about to awaken this new member of the MSM team.

          I wish you luck.

          My own experience with veterans, has left me to conclude that it will be the journalists and politicians among us, that will be the “very last” to awaken.

          Do you think that we have reached that point? Is it is now their turn?

          I hope so.

          I am keenly interested in your project.

        5. Thank you Susan!

          Before bothering to look into this, the case is closed! Wonder how these frauds are paid, so much for a view, so much for a comment, so much for a disappearing act until we need you again?

        6. Funding you ask Kathy? My Guess— A Solicitation for a Funding Opportunity comes to the desk of the chief at GPD. “This grant opportunity is for rehearsing a crisis situation comprised of one of the following scenarios. Your application for the grant should describe in detail the time line, logistics and information control surrounding your drill event. Also include the resources outside your department that you will utilize, management methodology and how this opportunity will improve your department readiness”
          So the Chief says- “Guys, we have an opportunity to pick up a few bucks for the retirement fund or maybe that Harley we looked at…are we in?”

        7. Well, it certainly fits the pattern. It makes no sense. Why would they be so quick to put the “conspiracy nut” label on him right out of the chute?

          Interesting about tracing back to San Diego. He’s a long way from home. Susan’s link is instructive. He allegedly did this at 0700 and crashed his car. They find him at 1000 in the parking lot near the crash site? Since when is a professor “staff”?

          Stabbing and “hatchet” are an interesting juxtaposition. The primary thrust seems to be establishing his “credentials” as a conspiracy nut.

        8. Kind of interesting this hatchet-wielder case. While on the face of it there could be a person in a manic phase of bipolar condition, killed as they so often are by the cops. But why when it is actually a medical situation and someone is shot by police do they need to give you a huge amount of information about his political beliefs, in every gruesome detail? Isn’t too much information, in a great big wad, something like, well, fiction? You know, if you are telling a fiction, you only have so much time to make people believe the story. Think of a commercial for instance. You’ve got their attention, you make the pitch. Otherwise, it’s just a violent person who attacked the police and died, as happens every day. But no, there seems to be a morality play here. A cautionary tale for the masses. A way of dealing with our doubts — hey, you might go postal if you doubt too much for too long. So we have to show you what happens to bad little boys and girls. See? That’s my take on this. Did he die? I wasn’t there, but the telling of the tale has a certain quality I associate with fiction. It could be worse, of course, it could be a political death. But I doubt it.

        9. Same with Jared Loughner. A conspiracy nut brandishing a deadly weapon. It’s getting to be slapstick at this point. No witnesses.

        10. Anne, isn’t it weird that we don’t hear any more about the “beheading”? That was the most ridiculous one yet. Imagine, women on the street stopping to talk to the guy who just “beheaded” somebody right in front of them.

          These things are going to get “stupid” listed as a contagious disease.

        11. Yeah lophatt, and Ingrid went over to talk nicely to the ‘killer’ while he was still holding the machete. The two alleged perpetrators survived the bullets fired at them by police, appeared in kangaroo court and one had several fingers missing. Two or three widows of the dearly beheaded attended the court proceedings. Hundreds lined the streets during the funeral procession and the PM spoke stern words promising a better world. I do enjoy British humor.

          Not to be outdone, in Los Angeles 5000 attended a memorial service for the fallen TSA agent with all sorts of dignitaries on hand for speeches.

          Gainesville residents, any plans there for similar festivities? Or perhaps conspiracy nuts don’t count, but fusiliers and TSA agents do.

          “On 19 December 2013, both of the attackers were found guilty of Rigby’s murder.[11] On 26 February 2014, they were sentenced to life imprisonment, with Adebolajo given a whole life order and Adebowale ordered to serve at least 45 years.[12]”

        12. Anne and Musings, yes, it is “odd” that they decided that his political beliefs merit more discussion than how he got from San Diego to Florida to get all “stabby” (choppy?).

          No explanation why he chose the prof. We DO know that he held strange views, however.

          As to the African assailants. My guess is that the “life sentences” will likely be serviced on that continent. Very “quietly” of course.

        13. Love that, Anne: the “dearly beheaded”! LOL

          As for Michael Cravey, I learned from the media spokesperson for Shands Hospital (which is part of UF), one Janine Sykes, that the stabbing victim was, in fact, NOT a professor. It was a man named Clifton Preston. She emailed me to say that information was “released to the Gainesville Sun” Friday. Sykes apparently released it herself, maybe because I was pressing her and the Campus Police for the victim’s name. I have not seen any correction in the Sun, however.

          So how could the Sun have gotten that wrong? Appears there was a script change. Unfortunately, we’re seeing an inexperienced reporter who is constructing news stories whole cloth out of press releases, and not asking questions she needs to ask.

          Coincidentally, Cliff Preston was written up in the Sun on Feb. 1, 2014, as a “baby cuddler.” It said he goes to Shands weekly for a three-hour shift. See:

          So he has a relationship with UF, specifically Shands Hospital. And he works for UF’s “Computer Enterprise Systems.”

          I need to note that again my posts are not going over, because of interference with my computer, particularly on this thread, using my dinophile moniker. The comment either vanishes when I press “submit,” or I get a message from WordPress saying “This comment could not post.” I have switched email accounts; last time, the “Post Comment” button would simply not work. Anne, I remember you had said you had connection problems. Is that still going on?

        14. dinophile, I switched email accounts too and I’m very careful about clicking on links. Since I switched there has been no problem. Some of my responses here used to vanish in cyberspace and my computer shut down and had to be rebooted. Now I am very careful about the words I use. Some words seem to upset the workings over there Bluffdale, Utah. Good name for the location.

          From professors and baby cuddlers, quite a script change. I would not want a 59 year old stranger cuddling my baby. The Gainesville Sun still has only one mention of a Cliff Preston, the baby cuddler. There are only two Cliff (Clifford) Prestons in all of Florida. One is 59 and lives in
          Gainesville, the other lives in Panama City.

          It seems that script writers at headquarters and their superiors did not anticipate a new wave of pesky, independent researchers. Really upset their rotten to the core apple carts. From what I can tell across the globe, these so called united states are in the forefront with pesky independent researchers. Other countries are lagging behind with UK and Canada as runners up.

          Not directly related to this, but indirectly. In regards to the missing Malaysian plane – when I saw the photo of a couple at an airport clearly staging sorrow in front of a professional photographer with his equipment on a tripod, I predicted this photo would be the lead photo in the many stories to follow. It was. I suspected there would be more to come in regards to the flight, this was only the beginning.

        15. Are you serious? they actually let strangers volunteer to cuddle babies? Doesn’t that interfere with the parent-baby bonding process? Shouldn’t the parents do the cuddling? I could understand abandoned or orphaned babies needing this but… do you have to sign a release or something?

        16. Thanks, Anne! I agree about “Bluffdale,” and everything else.

          And yes, Anne and Rich, it is very weird, this idea of a stranger cuddling babies. These are babies in the neonatal ICU, too. Should they be handled at all?

      1. I decided to comment on the Gainesville Sun’s article about it today, then found I could not comment without a Facebook account. After some back and forth about it, a man named Joel has said he will submit my comment as a letter to the editor. It’s kind of “in your face.” Here’s what I wrote:

        I do not find any part of this crazy story believable. Not a single witness is named, not even the “stabbing victim.”

        I think not only was there no stabbing, there was no real shooting. Michael Cravey appears to be a disinfo agent who made YouTube videos to divert independent researchers from uncovering real facts. His “stabbing” someone, then driving on the wrong side of the street, then charging an officer with an upraised hatchet, are what a CIA asset does when he has outlived his usefulness. More importantly, such acts are calculated to discredit serious researchers and bloggers, who have unearthed real evidence that such things as the Sandy Hook and Boston Marathon “bombing” were government-sponsored hoaxes involving paid actors. See this site:

        The Cravey incident is another hoax, as far as I can see. The PD needs to realize that, with no named witnesses or victims, we have no reason to believe any crime occurred.

        1. Wow! Sunny! Way to go! I wonder if it will appear in the paper. That would be amazing!

        2. So, the latest is as follows:

          1. University Towing (which has the jeep in “secure storage”) won’t let me look at it, even with one of their employees standing next to me, although the cops have now released it. Only the family can look at it.

          The white car also in the accident was not impounded “because it was not involved in a crime,” according to the towing company lady.

          2. Shands Hospital won’t let me talk to any of the people who might have admitted either the stabbing victim or Cravey, since that would interfere with their jobs. However, their “Media Relations Coordinator” took down my questions (such as times of admission, nature of wounds, weapon which inflicted wounds, autopsy report in Cravey’s case, and, of course, identity of stabbing victim) and said she would get back to me.

          3. My letter to the editor does not appear in the Sun today.

        3. Dr. Tracy, is there any journalistic-ethical problem in quoting unnamed sources? This is not a case of a confidential informant.

        4. Curious about a phrase you used and wish you would elaborate on how you see this: “His ‘stabbing’ someone, then driving on the wrong side of the street, then charging an officer with an upraised hatchet, are what a CIA asset does when he has outlived his usefulness.”

          With all due respect, reference to the CIA (which is by law forbidden to operate within the US) is likely to raise eyebrows and make it unlikely that someone will publish such a conclusion in the newspaper. Not to say it might not be true, simply to say that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs” (allowing for the fact that this phrase is used far too much and the extraordinary claims made without proof are standard in the MSM (i.e. pressure cooker bombs with a unique proclivity for cutting off legs and leaving everything else unscathed).

          I don’t deny that this is an improbable event. I don’t deny that this guy was probably an operative of some agency. What I do wonder about it your conclusion. I would prefer to raise a doubt about the veracity of the story, and in going to the hospital, you are doing what any reporter worth his salt should be doing about such a story. But trying to rally people to the idea that the source of the hoax is known to be CIA falls short in my estimation of capturing the true problem pervasive in our society today with the elimination of the “fourth wall” in staged fiction and the manipulation of reality into “reality theater.”

          I understand that intelligence assets who are working in deep cover need to vanish eventually. I’ll bet that one of the alleged 9/11 victims, Israeli Daniel Lewin (a multimillionaire part owner of Akamai Corp.) was actually that kind of cat. But who he worked for is still not completely understood. By the way, the square named for him, a street corner at MIT, is the intersection where some the Marathon bombing narrative was carried out (the killing of officer Sean Collier). I would expect them to rename the square for Collier or to make it Lewin-Collier Square.

          But I don’t claim to know who is pulling the strings, and I assume it is some faction who may actually have enemies within the same agency or be in some rivalry with another agency. Also – is it the tail wagging the dog or vice versa? Is it top down or bottom up or sideways?

          I only know not to believe.

        5. You’re right, musings; that is a fair comment. I certainly don’t know it was the CIA, and that’s probably why they didn’t publish the letter. I should have stuck to the point about independent researchers being lumped together with wackos who rush at cops with hatchets.

        6. A new article has just been published on the Sun’s website (around 5:00 p.m.). It talks about a “911 call,” from a witness to the stabbing–a witness again unnamed.

          Officer Tobias told me there were NO 911 calls.

      2. Susan, “paranoid narcissism”? Yep! I wonder if he was channeling the Navy Yard dude?

        Maybe they found him through his, um, posts, and decided he’d be perfect for the role in their new drill.

    1. Weep, weep, weep. There is a privatization of war and my once great country has a strong hand on seemingly all of it. As Matt Drudge declared not so long ago, everyone needs an exit plan….

  30. Have noticed on several occasions now, if Fox News is doing a segment that is anti the current regime, whether it is healthcare, Benghazi, Russia, IRS, etc., the signal is jammed until the segment is over. Our tax dollars hard at work!

    1. Coincidentally, a newscaster on FOX just thanked so many viewers for alerting them about the signal jamming events!

      The explanation given to them was sunspots!

      Sunspots that only effect news tptb do not want heard and the only network channel they have already declared their enemy!

      They are on it. It would probably be difficult to pinpoint, but believe it is a huge crime to cause interference and they may be powerful enough to bring charges against the guilty parties!

  31. I’m an Engineer, Civil, and this moron is no Engineer. Why do people give 2 s#&ts about what he says? He is not an Engineer, and all he does is go around propagating communism and lies? Unbelievable, the amount of college-aged morons that will want to actually listen to this old fart, and applaud his stupidity is the reason why the media and government can get away with the 9/11 lies.

    The vast majority of parents throw their kids into public schools, where they are brainwashed, and trained to not question authority. Well, serves us right! If parents don’t step up, and slap some reality into their children, and train them on how to think and question authority then we have no hope for freedom.

  32. He’s ALIVE! Here’s Peter, doing his “mental health” contribution and modeling the “proper” behavior toward kids with handicaps:

    So, he thinks his kid was “evil” and he wishes he were never born? I guess that makes it all Nancy’s fault? Whatever! If this weren’t imaginary I’d like to smack him.

    So the mystery man surfaces without his “spokesman”. He says that he thinks his son would kill him. Of course a person of so little means would have no way to intervene in a situation like this.

    Anyway, they’re keeping the tale alive. It seems he and his lady are moving to greener pastures. But, where does that leave Mr. Cockfield? I suppose he’ll have to wait for the next “event”. Who says crime doesn’t pay?

    1. I watched that on a few of the networks. What is extremely confusing about the interview is how they portray “Adam Lanza” as a very good student at SHES. Yet, in countless reporting/interviews/reports they insisted that he had no connection with SHES. Even if I were an old man who watched MSM and had at least some memory, I would be very confused.

      Well, we can rest assured that Peter Lanza did get his wish. Adam Lanza was never born, or at least not until 12-13-12. It’s funny how its an interview done in the third person and we only hear the reporter’s version. I am beginning to wonder if Peter Lanza even exists?

      1. Well, maybe he doesn’t. Like Sherry says in her video (attached), wouldn’t you mention that, initially they said that he killed you? A minor point, to be sure, but…..

        I have read that “Adam” graduated “early” and went to college where he maintained a respectable GPA. Now we hear that he didn’t finish, was tutored at home, and went to High School prep classed at college.

        Then, of course, they must have purchased a special platform just for “Adam” to dance the day away. Otherwise, how would this local “movie house” pay the bills.

        And, no one has any pictures of him save the shopped one (and this new one that has the eyes altered). By the way, if he wishes his sone was never born, why would he care if anyone knew where he was buried? It’s a poser.

        I think that is the most frustrating aspect of this whole thing. They keep insulting us. Did I mention that a Yeti parachuted into my yard and ate my rhododendrons? No really, it did! I put a call into Anderson Cooper and I’m waiting for a CNN truck to arrive any minute.

      2. John, as stated earlier both Peter and Adam were born at the Exeter Hospital in NH and there is ample documentation (which I have viewed and sent to Dr. Tracy) to support that the DOB matches the MSM reported ages. Peter and Adam spent their early years in Kingston, NH. Their identities and those of their families where chosen for SHE Illusion and theatre for reasons we have been discussing, investigating and speculating on for some time.

    2. Reading the DM is always enlightening. Especially comments such as this one:

      anna, Devon, United Kingdom, 7 hours ago
      Some of the original people who suggested that it didn’t happen had to agree that it did happen. James Tracy, a professor at Florida Atlantic University who teaches a course on conspiracy theories, now agrees that real deaths did occur! I guess the fact that he teaches conspiracy theories means he needs to keep them going to ensure lots of the tin hat brigade sign up for future course! Interestingly he decline an interview on TV to explain his views. Yet once it is put ‘out there’ on the internet the ‘conspiracy theorists’ jump on the bandwagon despite so much evidence it happened.

      1. Well Anne, in order to displace “The Kardasians” you have to be “special”. Yes, I just grab ’em where I find ’em. I’m not a regular reader.

        This is an obvious “hit piece”. I love the little photo where they did the “eye thing” again. Then there’s the picture of the little boy with the gun. Subtle it isn’t.

        So March must have been the scheduled month for the Peter resurrection (just long enough to prolong the myth), and now all the “doubters” have been shown to be utterly insane.

        All we have of these characters are these disembodied pictures of heads. Sort of like Alfred P. Newman. There is even a shot of what is purported to be his hideaway that he is now leaving for parts unknown. They have “slipped the surly bonds of B.S.” on this one.

        1. That pic with the button down shirt, button down collar, and the moe/three stooges bowl cut. Looks like about 1979 – 1982 to me. I can go into my Jr. high yearbooks and find people like this

    3. This cockamamie story has an Errol Cockfield stamp all over. Instead of rehashing tired images, what about some new ones? I’d like to see the missus by the stove cooking chili while her husband is pouring his heart out to Andrew Solomon. One of the German Shepherd? I love German Shepherds. How about a photo of all that uneaten candy? Who in their forsaken minds send candy to the father of a mass murder? Come to think of it, that would be the first thing I would do too if I were smart.

      From the DM:
      And, Lanza also refused to be drawn on the macabre subject of where his son was buried after killing shooting dead his mother, the 26-victims of Sandy Hook and then ultimately, himself. ‘No one knows that,’ he says. ‘And no one ever will.’

      Ok, we were told that Peter Lanza finally was forced to claim the bodies of both Nancy and Adam since no else seemed willing to do so. Not even Cockfield? Adam’s body was not buried, he was cremated, and the ashes spread in a very secret location according to sources close to the case. Cockfield again? Hopefully nowhere near Sandy Hook.

      Physiological warfare tactics need a good dose of both sarcasm and humor to counter the psychopaths behind this non event that became a major event.

        1. The last we heard was that Adam was into pedophilia. There were a few other macabre accusations before that. Now we’re told he was a fan of Ron Paul. Next we’ll be hearing that Adam wanted the Federal Reserve abolished, income taxes done away with and European royalty exiled. I am starting to like the fella.

        2. Yeah, the more they “expose”, the more fake it gets. He was probably antisemitic too.

          Maybe its just me, but I find that phone call to the theater more than a little strange. What possible pressure could they exert that would cause someone to be afraid to discuss something like that? Maybe I’m just a “rebel” at heart but no employer of mine is going to tell me what I’m allowed to discuss on the phone.

          So we are back to heavy mystery time. They continue to make while unsubstantiated claims but refuse to discuss them.

Leave a Reply