Sun News claims of free speech don’t cut it in attacks on Gage, 9/11 truthers: complaint 2 filed


Sun News host Ezra Levant leads the attack on the CBSC for being "stupid."

Small words: Sun News host Ezra Levant leads the attack on the CBSC for being “Conservative-hating fools” and “bullies.”

By Craig McKee

This week, I filed a second complaint against Sun News and their truther-hating host Michael Coren for his accusation that AE911Truth’s Richard Gage and all who agree with him are anti-Semitic hate-mongers.

In my original complaint to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, I cited Coren’s March 21 installment of The Arena in which he accused Gage and all truthers of being insane, weak-minded, anti-Semitic losers. I hadn’t really planned on filing a complaint about Coren’s March 28 follow-up program (which was primarily a rehash), but a second viewing convinced me otherwise.

In that second show, Coren suggested that Gage is motivated by a hatred of Jews, even though there isn’t a shred of evidence to back this up. He said that most truthers believe that ALL the movers and shakers behind 9/11 were Jews, although he provides no basis for this contention. He also says he has talked to “some people” who claim ALL the Jews were told to stay away from the World Trade Center on 9/11. But, of course, he doesn’t tell us who those people are.

Here’s the line by Coren that led to me filing this second complaint:

“There were many Jews who died on 9/11 – died in the towers, died as first responders. Died. Jews do die, you see, Mr. Gage and your clan. Jews do die.”

Whether this defamatory and false allegation breaks any of the codes of ethics administered by the CBSC remains to be seen. One thing we already know is that Michael Coren is a condescending clown of a journalist who prefers ridicule to research and distortion to discussion – at least where 9/11 is concerned.

Here is the body of the complaint I filed:

“Coren continued where his March 21 show left off in attacking Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and anyone who questions the official story of 9/11. He spent much of the March 21 report calling Gage and his supporters insane, neurotic, paranoid, weak-minded, crazy, anti-Semitic, and losers. In his follow-up show, he narrowed his focus in attempting to define Gage and those who agree with him as being anti-Semitic bigots who are motivated not by evidence, but by hate.

 Despite the abhorrent nature of Coren’s mocking and condescending “report,” it was one remark in particular that led me to file this second complaint, as I will explain.

Most of the report focused on the question that Gage had been asked in his original interview (shown on March 21 and repeated on March 28). Coren asked: “Some people I’ve spoken to say that all the Jews were told to stay away from work – is that true, too?”

Gage said he did not know and that he had not looked at this question (he was asked the question three times). In fact, Coren admits that he asked several people at the event the same question, and NONE of them said they believed this to be true. Most, according to Coren, said they didn’t know, which he interpreted as giving credence to a “hateful” claim. According to Coren, they should have said it was false based on an assumption that it was false.

In his report, Coren explained to his viewers that Gage and his fellow truthers are motivated by a hatred of Jews. He applied this to NDP MP Megan Leslie’s decision to post Gage’s Halifax presentation on her web page, saying: “Who told you that truthers and 9/11 deniers don’t spread hate? I mean where do you live? In what world do you function? The anti-Semitism within the truther movement is vile, it’s tangible.”

Coren provides not one example of anything vile having been said on the subject by Gage or any truther at this event or any other. Apparently we’re just supposed to take his word for it.

He further explained that Jews did in fact die on 9/11 in the towers (which no one connected to this report, including Gage, has denied – or even questioned). And the statement from Coren that prompted this complaint followed:

“There were many Jews who died on 9/11 – died in the towers, died as first responders. Died. Jews do die, you see, Mr. Gage and your clan. Jews do die.”

This directly accuses Gage of believing and claiming that no Jews died on 9/11 because they had all been warned to stay away. Coren is DIRECTLY accusing Gage of hating Jews, of being a bigot who is motivated by hate. There is not a single shred of evidence to support this defamatory accusation.

In truth, Gage is motivated by science. His entire presentation – and every one of the hundreds of presentations he has given all over the world over the past several years – are focused on the scientific evidence that he believes shows that the official version of how the towers came down cannot stand up to scrutiny.

Coren also uses the term “9/11 denier” in referring to Gage. This is a deliberate attempt to make the link to “Holocaust deniers,” which Gage is not. Did Coren come across even one Holocaust denier at the Gage event? If so, he didn’t mention it in his report.

Of course, Coren is entitled to argue that Gage’s position has no merit. This isn’t about Coren’s right to freely offer his opinions. It is about defaming an interview subject – along with an entire identifiable group – for the second week in a row by accusing them of being purveyors of hate speech. It is about another failure by Sun News to live up to the very codes of ethical conduct that it voluntarily submits itself to by virtue of its membership in the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.”

 

First complaint goes to next level

My first complaint moved to the next stage this week when I rejected the position offered by Sun News’s director of legal affairs, Anuradha Iyer, that everything Coren said on March 21 fell into the “free speech” category. I present my entire response to Iyer below, so that you can all marvel at my legal acumen – or at least my capacity for self-punishment.

The response serves to notify the CBSC that I am not satisfied with the Sun News explanation and that I want a decision to be rendered. The latest that decision can be made is August 22 although it could come sooner.

Iyer responded to my complaint with a letter that included this:

“Sun News accepts that some viewers may disagree with Mr. Coren’s opinions expressed during the segment in question. However, the principle of freedom of expression, which forms a cornerstone of our democracy and legal system, provides that Mr. Coren has the right to express his opinion on the facts being discussed and the position being taken by Mr. Gage and others, and not be sanctioned for doing so.”

My rebuttal of Iyer’s comments becomes part of the record and will be considered when the decision is rendered. Here’s what I wrote (minus my inclusion of my Twitter exchange with Coren, which was covered in my March 31 post). It’s a bit long, so I won’t be hurt if readers wish to skip the italicized paragraphs below:

“On April 14, I received the response to my complaint against Sun News concerning a March 21 report by Michael Coren on his program The Arena. The response was completely unsatisfactory and ignored most of the concerns I raised in the complaint. For this reason, I wish to have a decision rendered by the CBSC.

I would like to offer a rebuttal of the response from Ms. Iyer. First, I would like to address her “By way of background” comment, which is factually incorrect:

Ms. Iyer states: “Mr. Coren was describing his attendance at an event organized by the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Richard Gage. By way of background, this is a group of individuals commonly referred to as “9/11 conspiracy theorists” or “truthers”, who do not believe the “official” story that the Twin Towers were brought down by Al-Qaida operatives.”

This is not accurate. The organization Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth represents more than 2,100 architects and engineers who do not believe that plane impacts and office fires brought the three World Trade Center towers down on Sept. 11, 2001. They believe that the scientific evidence indicates that explosives had to have been used for the buildings to fall the way they did. This organization stays away from speculating about who was responsible for these controlled demolitions.

And a clarification: Ms. Iyer states that those who question the official story of 9/11 are commonly referred to as “9/11 conspiracy theorists” or “truthers.” While many who question the official line are happy to call themselves “truthers,” the term “9/11 conspiracy theorist” is often used by those who wish to marginalize them. “Conspiracy theorist” is often intended to suggest that the individual is speculating on a subject without the benefit of facts or evidence, which does not fit Gage or his organization. The term is also a misnomer given that we all agree that 9/11 was not carried out by a single individual – therefore we all agree it was a conspiracy. We just don’t agree on who was responsible.

But the essence of my complaint is that Coren branded interview subject Gage (including the 2,100 architects and engineers he represents), other unidentified interview subjects, and all of those who question the official story of 9/11, as being mentally ill, among other abusive, derogatory, and unjustified attacks.

In the report, Coren refers to the above as:

  • “failures”
  • “weak-minded”
  • “crazy people”
  • “anti-Semites”
  • “deniers” (a veiled reference to Holocaust deniers)
  • “losers”
  • “little people”
  • “frightened”
  • “trying to be big”
  • “silly”
  • “childish”

But Coren goes even further when he says:

“It’s the same seamless garment of paranoia, neurosis, and insanity.”

Coren is calling 9/11 truthers in general, and Gage in particular, paranoid, neurotic, and insane.

  • Neurosis is defined by dictionary.com as: “… a functional disorder in which feelings of anxiety, obsessional thoughts, compulsive acts, and physical complaints without objective evidence of disease, in various degrees and patterns, dominate the personality.
  • Paranoia is defined as: “… a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defense or as a mission,” and “… baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.”
  • Insanity is defined as: “… the condition of being insane; a derangement of the mind. Synonyms: dementia, lunacy, madness, craziness, mania, aberration.”

Let’s be clear about one thing: Coren was not joking when he made this remark. He meant every word. And when he said “insanity” he did not mean in the sense of foolishness. He meant mentally deranged.

This position was reinforced by the incredibly unprofessional and unethical act of placing the words “Conspiracy Loony” across the screen while Gage was being interviewed at the very beginning of the report. A moment later, this changed to “Truther Trash.” We weren’t told whether it was Gage’s views that were trash or whether he was being called trash. Clearly, both interpretations were possible.

In the case of CHOI-FM re Le monde parallèle de Jeff Fillion(CBSC Decision 02/03-0115) Decided July 17, 2003, the Panel found against Fillion, stating that:

“He spouted ugly and generalized epithets, comprehensible only in their flailing nastiness and not because a serious listener might have actually understood what his competitor did, if anything, to merit criticism.  Thus, for example, the Quebec Panel finds that “conceited asshole”, “that worthless piece of trash”, a “loser”, a “piece of vomit”, a “shit disturber” and a “tree with rotten roots” fall into this category, whereas focussed comments such as the accusation that Tétrault was “a poor communicator” who had lost most of his listeners are fair game.”

Coren and his program even use some of these same words. Fillion says “that worthless piece of trash” and Coren’s program says, “Truther trash.” Fillion says “loser,” and so did Coren.

From the Panel’s decision in Sun News Network re The Source (Chiquita Banana). (CBSC Decision 11/12- 0847+). Issued June 13, 2012:

“The Panel Adjudicators concluded that host Ezra Levant used personal and particularly coarse insults with respect to a Chiquita executive that he named several times on the air, thereby violating the provisions of Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics regarding full, fair and proper presentation.”

This is directly relevant to the personal attack made against Gage, who was identified on air and referred to by name several times. While the Chiquita Banana executive was insulted in very vulgar way (with a Spanish phrase that translated to “Fuck your mother”), the insult in this case is even more personal because it directly insults Gage’s character and mental fitness. These attacks were not only nasty and personal, but they were also baseless.

Also from the decision: “… [Ezra Levant] indulged in language excesses that widely overstep the limits of what is acceptable in dealing with a controversial issue, even from a biased point of view.  He named the Chiquita executive who is a man with a Spanish name and said in a distinctly aggressive tone, several times, that the latter was a liar.”

If calling this person a liar several times in an aggressive tone “widely oversteps the limits of what is acceptable,” then I would argue that calling someone “insane,” “trash,” “anti-Semitic” (with no basis for doing so), “loser,” and  “weak-minded” is at least as bad. And the above makes it clear that Coren’s obvious bias cannot be used as an excuse for this unacceptable language.

This idea of personal insults crossing a line is reinforced in another decision where Sun News was not found to be in violation of the codes (Sun News Network re Canada Live (Margie Gillis interview) (CBSC Decision 10/11-1803+) Decided December 15, 2011:

“It is only when hosts have directed nasty personal insults at individuals that the CBSC has found violations of Clause 6.  While Erickson was forceful, she did not make any nasty comments about Gillis personally.”

Clearly in the case of Coren’s personal attack against Gage, Sun News failed to live up to this standard.

Ms. Iyer writes: “The CBSC has repeatedly affirmed in past decisions that broadcasters are entitled to discuss controversial public issues and express strong opinions on matters in the public interest, even if such views may be considered controversial, provocative or unpopular by some viewers.”

I have no concerns with Coren’s “controversial” opinions about any issue. He is entitled to those. But he is not entitled to defame all of those with whom he disagrees – including identified interview subjects like Richard Gage. Ironically, it is those who question the official story of 9/11 whose views are usually considered to be “unpopular” by our society. Apparently, Ms. Iyer thinks Coren should have the right to air unpopular views but she doesn’t think truthers deserve the right to do this without being accused of being deranged lunatics.

Ms. Iyer writes: “Clearly, Mr. Coren was amused by the event, and was of the opinion that the position taken by Mr. Gage (and the other “truthers” interviewed) was untenable and unsubstantiated by any empirical evidence. It was Mr. Coren’s opinion that Mr. Gage’s position on 9/11 (as well as that of the other truthers interviewed) had no merit and was in fact, something that was quite laughable.”

First of all, Mr. Coren DID NOT ATTEND THE EVENT. He did some interviews and then left before the event started. This fact was recorded by other independent media who were covering the event and who actually taped the exchange between Coren and Gage. And while Coren did not claim explicitly that he had stayed for the two-hour presentation, he implied as much when he said that he usually stays home in the evenings and “tucks up in bed,” but in this case he made an exception. Given that the event began at 7 p.m. and that Coren was gone by then, I’m sure his bedtime wasn’t significantly affected. The clear implication was that Coren had spent the evening at the event and listening to the evidence presented, which he had not. His opinion was set before he arrived.

In fact, his report made NOT ONE reference to anything from Mr. Gage’s scientific presentation or even to the evidence mentioned in the pre-event interview. So when Ms. Iyer describes Coren’s belief that Gage’s position was “untenable and unsubstantiated by any empirical evidence” she ignores the fact that Mr. Coren made no effort to address any of that evidence.

Coren did focus on a question about whether all the Jews were told to stay away from the World Trade Center on 9/11. When asked about this claim, Gage said he did not know anything about it, that he had not looked into this. Coren continued to push this even though Gage had been clear. “So it’s possible they were told to stay away?” Again, Gage said he has never looked at the question. After being asked a third time, Gage says, “I guess it’s possible, I don’t know.” Coren focuses on the fact that Gage won’t condemn the idea just on principle. Coren said to Gage: “I don’t know either, but I can assume …”

Coren stated that truthers (including Gage) “always” like to blame Jews. “Always Jews. And little green men living in your anus.” Charming.

He did not deal with what Mr. Gage said, but rather attacked and demeaned him for what he did NOT say.

Ms. Iyer: “The very purpose of such current affairs programming is to provoke discussion and debate regarding matters of public interest.”

Coren’s report did nothing to provoke discussion. In fact, it did everything to block any kind of serious debate by ridiculing and defaming those he was disagreeing with.

Ms. Iyer “strongly disputes” my contention that interviews were edited in such a way as to mislead, but this is proven false when you simply look at the question Coren asked about which journalists had lost their jobs for speaking out on 9/11. Gage began to answer, saying, “Christina …” But his answer was cut there, apparently for comic effect. This left the false impression that Gage failed to recall even one name. Had Gage really not been able to name one person, then letting the clip run would have made him look worse. Cutting it in this misleading way was clearly meant to convey a false impression.

Gage was cut off in mid-sentence several times, which had the effect of making his answers appear less credible. When Gage was asked about who was responsible for 9/11, he started to answer, “I don’t know how high the conspiracy goes or how wide …” but he was cut off. Clearly there was a “but” coming but we never heard it.

On the same subject of who might have been responsible, Gage said, “If you look at what happened after 9/11 you can get a few clues …” Again his remarks are cut there so that we never hear how that thought would have been completed.

And again, Gage is told that Popular Mechanics did an investigation that showed how his position to be “bogus.” Gage’s sentence that began, “Then they proceeded to do a flimflam job …” was AGAIN cut off so that we did not hear the rest of the thought. This was done deliberately to undermine the credibility of what Gage was saying.

Here are some of the ethics code provisions that I believe have been breached:

Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics deals with “Full, Fair and Proper Presentation: “It is recognized that the full, fair and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial is the prime and fundamental responsibility of each broadcaster.”

Clearly this clause indicates that even opinion and commentary must be given “full, fair and proper presentation” in accordance with the Code. It is obvious that this was not done. Calling those who are not satisfied with the official story of 9/11 “insane” is hardly full, fair, or proper. Coren and Sun News failed in the prime and fundamental broadcast responsibility.

Clause 1 of the CAB’s Equitable Portrayal Code says: “Television and radio programming shall respect the principle of equitable portrayal of all individuals.”

Again, Coren is free to disagree with truthers, and with Gage in particular, but instead he attacked their character and their mental health while ignoring anything they were saying.

Clause 2 on Human Rights says it is essential that programming: “ … contains no abusive or unduly discriminatory material or comment which is based on matters of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability.”

This list does not specify those who support a cause or who question a dominant opinion, but according to the Fillion decision referred to above, any identifiable group is protected against abusively discriminatory remarks. The decision states:

“Fillion demonstrated an utter lack of respect, not only for the competitive host, but also, more important, for the audience he ought to serve.  The public interest is in no way served by such shallow grandstanding from the safe side of the microphone.  As this Panel concluded in CHOM-FM and CILQ-FM re the Howard Stern Show (CBSC Decisions 97/98-0001+ and 0015+, October 17 and 18, 1997), “Every Canadian, regardless of nationality, is diminished by abusively discriminatory remarks which are aimed at any identifiable group.”

“Any identifiable group.” This is very clear. Even though truthers are not mentioned specifically in the list of categories of groups that are covered by the codes, they are still an identifiable group (as are the professionals who are part of Gage’s organization), and they deserve the same fairness and civility that any of those groups deserve. And Coren was certainly guilty of “shallow grandstanding from the safe side of a microphone.”

Clause 3 on Negative Portrayal is even clearer: “In an effort to ensure appropriate depictions of all individuals and groups, broadcasters shall refrain from airing unduly negative portrayals of persons with respect to race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability. Negative portrayal can take many different forms, including (but not limited to) stereotyping, stigmatization and victimization, derision of myths, traditions or practices, degrading material, and exploitation.”

Coren failed spectacularly to live up to the stated goal of appropriate depictions of ALL individuals and groups. The last sentence in the paragraph above describes perfectly what he did in his report. Had the comments he made been directed at any other identifiable group there would have been widespread outrage. But it is apparently acceptable at Sun News to use stereotyping and stigmatization to attack the mental health of “conspiracy theorists” on the public airways.

Clause 7 on Controversial Public Issues also applies to this complaint: “Recognizing in a democracy the necessity of presenting all sides of a public issue, it shall be the responsibility of broadcasters to treat fairly all subjects of a controversial nature.”

While Coren did allow Mr. Gage a few moments to speak, he made no effort to fairly treat this subject of a “controversial nature.” He ignored the evidence presented by Gage and instead called him anti-Semitic and mentally ill. He then compounded this a week later in his March 28 broadcast when he likened questioning the 9/11 official story to hate speech.

I thank the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council for taking the time to consider my complaint. I look forward to your decision.”

 

Sun News and their battles with “secretive bureaucrats”

Sun News has had a frosty relationship with the CBSC since the network was granted a license by the Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) in 2010. A condition of it being granted a license was membership in the CBSC, which is an industry-funded organization that represents the vast majority of the private broadcasters in Canada.

At Sun News, they rail at the idea of a bunch of secretive bureaucrats cooking up censorship schemes to prevent the free expression of ideas. Host Ezra Levant calls the CBSC’s panel members Conservative-hating “fools” who are intent on censoring free speech.  He calls them “stupid” and the panel a “bullying censor sitting just off camera with a buzzer ready to hook me off the TV.” FALSE. Levant gets to unleash his infantile rants on TV every day, and no one has hooked him off the TV yet. One can only dream …

And Mr. Levant has played fast and loose with the truth in these rants. He calls the CBSC censors, which they are not. He says they ban things, which they do not. He says they are bureaucrats who attack the right of private broadcasters to use free speech while giving a pass to the government-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. What he doesn’t explain to his viewers is that the CBSC was created by the private broadcasters themselves, and it is these private members who fund the association and who are responsible for the contents of the ethics codes that it uses. So, of course they don’t have jurisdiction over the CBC, which has its own complaints mechanism.

In a memorable anti-CBSC rant after a ruling had gone against him in 2012, as if talking to an audience of 10-year-olds, Levant said this:

“They say I’ve broken their rules and that Sun News is in trouble for what I say on this show. They say that what I’ve talked about with you, my viewers, is not allowed in Canada. They say I’m “biased”; they say my monologues are “tirades.” Those are the words they used. And they have demanded I read out a confession on the air.”

Sorry, Ezra, but no one is censored for being biased nor are they for launching tirades. And the CBSC does not force hosts to read confessions. They require their members to read a statement that they have been found to be in violation of one or more of the ethics codes administered by the CBSC. Simple as that.

The blatant dishonesty in Levant’s comments is incredible. I didn’t follow the antics of Sun News in 2012 (and my life was happier for it), but the recent defamation of Richard Gage and all members of the 9/11 Truth movement has forced me to sit through some examples of their infantile hate-mongering. Could it be that their nickname, “Fox News North,” is an insult to – gulp – Fox News? I didn’t think that was possible.

260 comments

  1. An Imperial storm trooper convided in me that Darth Vader is a war criminal and has the proof but was afraid to say anything cause the Empire would label him as a racist cause Vader is black

  2. Well made 2nd complaint Craig! You focused on the real issue which is the defamation Coren used. The particular brand of defamation Coren used has a purpose though that may have gone unnoticed by some. What is it exactly Coren is attempting to do by slandering Gage as a “Jew hater” and a “Holocaust denier”? Well quite simply he is trying to paint Gage and all 9/11 truthers as “domestic terrorists” or “enemies of the state” so that they can be treated to the provisions of the Canadian version of the USA Patriot act. I think Coren is attempting to provide justification so that all truthers can be rounded up and renditioned to some hell hole secret prison in another country to be tortured or even killed. That in my opinion is exactly what he is attempting to do in a not so subtle way. In fact that exact same thing was attempted by the US Senator Harry Reid when he directly labeled Clivin Bundy and his supporters as “domestic terrorists”. Simply go to youtube and search for Clivin Bundy Harry Reid as your search terms and you will see the video. According to the Patriot act the president has the authority to assassinate American citizens who are deemed to be “enemy combatants”. He decides who qualifies apparently and the criteria for qualification are secret.

    So what Coren is really attempting to do here is extremely dangerous and in fact constitutes a genuine threat to the life and liberty of Gage and all truthers. All that is necessary for his attack to be successful is for some like minded officials to be in key positions of power in Canada and poof Canadian truthers are on their way to extraordinary renditions or worse. Coren is actually trying in the most deceitful way to have us banished or even killed. He knows what he is doing just like Harry Reid knows what he is really trying to do. I consider it to be a direct threat and a very dangerous and real one and it should be treated as such. Make no mistake this is as serious as a heart attack.

    In Rwanda this sort of thing that Coren and Reid are attempting actually took off and resulted in a horrible genocide where “Tutsies” were the selected “enemy combatants” and were slaughtered by the tens of thousands with machetes.

    Hate Radio
    http://www.rwandanstories.org/genocide/hate_radio.html
    “TALKING IN CODE…
    The radio told people to go to work and everyone knew that meant get your machete and kill Tutsis.”

    1. Harry Reid’s “domestic terrorist” comment comes just after the two minute mark in the video above. Keep in mind Reid is grossly distorting and in fact lying about what actually took place in the Bundy situation. In fact it was the BLM who brought out snipers and attack dogs first and so far only the BLM has actually been violent. They tazered multiple people, physically attacked multiple people including women and shot and killed dozens of Bundy’s cattle. Reid is involved up to his eyeballs in trying to steal Bundy’s land and he got exposed so now he is trying to paint them as domestic terrorists so they can be killed apparently. Reid wants his profits from his energy deal with the Chinese you see so he is willing to destroy or even kill Americans to get those profits.

      Coren’s motivation is a bit more murky but I think it comes down to him representing “the state” or at least a faction of it that needs to preserve the 9/11 myth in order to justify all it’s power grabbing and anti constitutional behavior. Coren strikes me as a “mockingbird” type asset for this group within the power structure of Canada. My only hope is that the group he actually represents is shrinking and not growing in power.

        1. Excellent and I whole heartedly agree that the Federal Government needs to be drastically reduced in size and power. The only issue I see is that many state governments, like California where I live, are nearly as bad as the federal government. This effort has to go one step further as I see it where counties wrest control from the states in their localities to bring the state government under some kind of reasonable control as well. All that of course is in an ideal world.

          In our real world I am afraid there is going to be a civil war between the power mad DC bosses and the people. The states, some of them, will side with the people hoping to ride them up to their own power grabbing schemes. Some states, like California, will go against the people and try to keep the feds and themselves in power. It is going to be a mess that is for sure. It will probably get violent although I hope it doesn’t. There are non violent ways of achieving all these changes and the irony is they would work better and faster than violence would but violence will most likely ensue anyway. If the feds don’t provoke it themselves I would be very surprised.

          A good old fashioned tax revolt would cut the feds off at the knees without a single shot being fired. Non violent civil disobedience would do it too but it would involve genuine resolve and courage from masses of people. I am unsure myself if that kind of discipline is within the American people. They seem to be more focused on selfish concerns and the next iphone than on taking action to save their country and themselves. Most people unfortunately are not even aware of the problem nor are they even remotely aware that they have the power to change it. It does seem depressing at times but when I see what happened at the Bundy ranch I get very optimistic indeed.

      1. I hope so, too. But even the more “respectable” media outlets continue to marginalize 9/11 truthers, although not in as vicious terms as the reactionaries at this network. Coren attacks the messengers so he won’t have to look at actual facts. The funny thing is this network paints itself as conservative and anti-establishment, but it really supports that establishment in all but the most superficial ways.

        1. Yup. Huffington Post is a good example; they generally do, within the parameters of their “box,” very good journalism, and many articles exist at that site that I will wholeheartedly recommend.

          But they don’t accept pro 9/11 truth articles. However, they had no problem at all publishing an article about the Q&A with Noam Chomsky several months back, where Chomsky referred to the 2000 architects and engineers as a “miniscule” number, and made the ridiculous claim that all truthers have to do is submit their findings to a peer reviewed scientific jouirnal, and that doing such a thing would yield no pushback. Remember that? Because it was Chomsky speaking, the audience applauded as if, in the words of one commenter, roses were being offered from the lips of Buddha.

          Since HP is “progressive,” they don’t attack truthers the way Bill O’Reilly and Michael Coren do. Nope, they just need to inform us that because the intellectual giant Chomsky is chiding the truth movement (for not seeking peer review), the movement can be dismissed. If Chomsky is saying that only a miniscule number of A’s and E’s dispute the official story, VOILA! It’s reality, worthy of being applauded. Fair game for a website that says it doesn’t discuss “conspiracy theories” on its editorial policy. Also takes me back to 911blogger rejecting blog submissions supportive of CIT yet approving attack pieces on that entity, with the attacked being given no chance to respond. But I digress. End of rant. Nice job, Craig!

    2. Many threads of Newspeak twine together into a sinister cord at this point in time.

      “Modern psychiatry has become a hotbed of corruption, particularly the kind that seeks to demonize and declare mentally ill anyone who deviates from what is regarded as the norm. This is abundantly evident in the latest installment of the industry’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, which dubs people who do not conform to what those in charge declare to be normal as mentally insane.

      The so-called “condition” for why a person might choose to resist conformity has been labeled by the psychiatric profession as “oppositional defiant disorder,” or ODD. The new DSM defines this made-up disease as an “ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior.”
      [Natural News]
      . . .
      That a twerp like Coren could actually get ‘certified’ psychiatrists to back up his spurious claims of insanity is not so far fetched. We have entered an era as absurdest as the Stalinist era in the Soviet Union. The mailed fist shows plainly under the shredded velvet glove.

      In times like these it is essential to recognize that the only viable response to ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’ is Full Spectrum Defiance. Whimpering in the shadows is the surest path to destruction now.

      \\][//

      1. Well said HR1, full spectrum defiance! Let the defiance begin!

        I would also make the point supporting your statement on psychiatry being corrupt that the whole industry now has the function of labeling EVERYONE as having some kind of disorder. Even shyness is listed as a disorder in the DSM. Why would they do this? The reasons are twofold and very sinister indeed. The first reason they want to label everyone with a disorder is to promote their own business and garner huge profits for themselves and most importantly for big pharma. The second reason they are trying to do this is so that the state can seize control of peoples lives. For example if you are found to have a mental disorder, purely by a psychiatrists diagnosis based purely on his/her opinion, you will not be allowed to own a gun. Yes that is right, if a psychologist thinks you are crazy you lose your second amendment right to bear arms. So it is not hard to see the trend here, the state employs a raft of psychiatrists who in turn deem anyone who is opposed to the state as insane for one reason or another and presto that person is not only disarmed but also subject to a host of state controls over their lives. It is truly evil especially since there is no diagnostic test that exists in the world to determine if a person has a “chemical imbalance” it is purely and totally based on the opinion of psychiatrists. I will NEVER go to one for any reason as long as I live nor will I ever take any psychotropic drugs for any reason EVER!

        1. Post modern obese, quite a larger beast than past times. A strange affliction in an era of mass starvation. Strange daze… heliotrope haze, complex maze, the peasant craze.

          One must not imagine super powers and stand chin out, fists on hips in the middle of the tracks facing the oncoming locomotive. One prearranges things and removes the tracks in the dark of the night before that day.

          \\][//

        2. You are grossly misinformed. I work for a county in California. I have been doing psychiatric evaluations for 23 years. I am the guy who has the final say if someone needs to be presented to a psych hospital against their will. All of your concerns about some grand conspiracy of psychiatry are EXACTLY what I try to prevent from becoming true. The only way the state can prevent anyone from owning a gun if if they are placed on an involuntary hold for danger to self or danger to others, and have an accepting facilities psychiatrist accept the admission. I spend more energy convincing families, medical staff in hospitals, therapists, school staff, etc. why the identified client does NOT need to be placed on an involuntary hold. The system is so fragmented and fucked up it could never carry out some plot to label everyone as mentally ill even if “they” wanted. There is little to no communication with county mental health agencies and private psych hospitals, and even less with state facilities. My specific part of my department does not even communicate in a consistent manner, and we have one of the flagship county mental health departments in California.The DSM has no real power. It is simply guidelines for billing purposes. Most seasoned mental health professionals know most of it is bullshit, but it create cubbyholes to try to quantify similar behaviors so there can be a way to track and keep stats on treatment outcomes.

          As for the original article we are commenting on, that is some brilliant analysis that can only be ignored if one fully intended to ignore it from the start.

          1. Steam Engine,

            Whom herein do you suggest is ignoring the brilliant analysis of the article by Mr Mckee?

            You say; “All of your concerns about some grand conspiracy of psychiatry are EXACTLY what I try to prevent from becoming true.”

            To which I express my sincerest gratitude. But why do you need to expend such effort to prevent this “grand conspiracy of psychiatry” if it is all in our deluded minds?

            Personally mine is a systemic analysis. I think that you dismiss the dangers, skipping over the clear reality of the pandemic of people being “treated” with these poisons from Big Pharma. This is not an indictment of every individual working in psychiatry or psychology.

            Do give Francis Farmer a hug for me next time you see her.

            \\][//

  3. These complaints against Richard Gage and A&E911 are indefensible. He and A&E do not take a stand on who was responsible and why, which is one of my complaints of them. Here are some articles about Israel’s complicity:

    * Jim Fetzer, “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda” (2008)

    * Jim Fetzer, “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?” (2009)

    * Jim Fetzer and Preston James, “Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots” (2011)

    * Jim Fetzer, “Anti-anti-Semitism and the search for historical truth” (2013)

    It would be nice if some of these Zionist shills actually knew they were talking about. There is abundant proof that 9/11 was carried out by the CIA, Neo-Cons in the Department of Defense. and the Israeli Mossad. Get over it.

  4. This epithet of anti-semitism is a bit weary. Gilad Atzmon says in his book, The Wandering Who, it used to be that people who hated Jews were called anti semites, now, an anti semite is one who the Jews hate. And Norman Finkelstein calls the holocaust, “the holocaust industry.” Keep on truckin.

  5. Spectacular report on your second filing Mr McKee.

    Regardless of where this goes per ‘officialdom’ at the CBSC, getting this issue out on the web like this is of the highest import.

    I also agree with Mr Ruff here, that we are being set-up as ‘domestic terrorists’ with this agenda. This is a more dangerous situation than many might consider it to be. Things are moving in fast forward towards a dramatic showdown with ‘the powers that be’. Hard lines are being drawn.

    We have been in Wonderland for a long time. It seems the next step in play croquette in the court of the Red Queen, with shouts of “off with their heads”.

    \\][//

  6. As with the idea of running candidates, the idea isn’t necessarily to win. Although in the case of this complaint a victory would mean a lot – and it would force them to read the decision on the air.

    1. Yes Craig,

      Seeing them eat crow would be most satisfying. As unlikely as it is due to ‘interlocking directorates’ it is still a possibility, as mollification might be timely at some point, especially if there is a groundswell of support via the Internet.

      \\][//

  7. If Gage and 9/11 truthers generally were Jewish then Coren would not be labeling them antisemitic and complaining that they ‘blame Jews for everything’. In other words, Coren’s is an objectively racist attack, specifically targeting non-Jews in a way that he never would do Jews.

    1. True. Although even when the truther is himself Jewish, that doesn’t stop them. Classic example: Richard Falk.

      http://www.sdjewishworld.com/2014/04/02/standwithus-protests-coming-falk-lecture-sdsu/

      SAN DIEGO (Press Release)– StandWithUs-San Diego is calling on the community to join in protest against San Diego State University offering course credit to students to attend a lecture by anti-Israel extremist Richard Falk on April 7.

      Falk speaks at SDSU as part of the Holster Series presented Mondays by Professor Jonathan Graubart Ph.D/JD from 4-6:30pm.

      “Richard Falk has built a career on the public advocacy of offensive, extremist, and intellectually irresponsible views,” said Nicole Bernstein, executive director of StandWithUS-San Diego. “By offering course credit to attend a one-sided lecture, it effectively normalizes anti-Israel discourse into acceptable college ‘teaching material.

      “While we are unequivocally committed to upholding free speech and academic freedom, we believe that SDSU’s association with Richard Falk undermines the university’s academic reputation and will provide a platform for spreading anti-Israel bigotry. It is one thing to allow this anti-Jewish, anti-American conspiracy theorist of the worst kind on campus under the guise of free speech and academic freedom; it is another thing entirely to encourage and endorse it, which by offering students credit for attending this speech is what SDSU is plainly doing,” said Bernstein.

      On March 24, 2014, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power condemned Richard Falk publicly with the following statement: “Falk’s relentless anti-Israeli bias, his noxious and outrageous perpetuation of 9/11 conspiracy theories and his publication of bizarre and insulting material has tarnished the U.N.’s reputation and undermined the effectiveness of the Human Rights Council.” and, “The United States welcomes Mr. Falk’s departure, which is long overdue.”

      So, even if the truther is Jewish, they’ll just find some way to still tie that person to anti-Semitism, and, conflate “anti-Israel” with being bigoted against Jews. Of course, calling 9/11 truth “anti-American” is clearly laughable to all reading here. But many people do get brainwashed, through local and national media, into believing that the ONLY reason a person would “want” to criticize Israel is because they don’t like Jews.

      1. And faces don’t come any “Jewisher” than Falk:

        Doesn’t stop the Zionist organizations from accusing him of being anti-Jewish…..

        1. Mr Syed
          They used to use the slur, “self-hating Jew” to characterize people like Mr Falk, who break from the mindless herd mentality.

          Yes, Nicole Bernstein’s hysterical ranting would be quite humorous if the situation weren’t so dead serious. And Samantha Power is long recognized as a neocon fascist attack bitch. Her use of terms like, “noxious and outrageous, bizarre and insulting,” is blatant instantaneous hypocrisy.

          \\][//

      2. StandWithUs is a global not-for-profit education organization that empowers the racist, exceptionalist, bigoted stance of Zionist Israel. It is a Hasbara front group: A mouth piece for the Global Corporatist Oligarchy.

        StandWithUs – Official Site — http://www.standwithus.com

        \\][//

        1. If StandWithUs is a Hasbara front then it’s a mouthpiece for Jewish-focused Jews protecting their vehicle, Israel. Don’t blame anyone else.

          If there really exists a ‘Global Corporatist Oligarchy’ I’m sure there are things they’re responsible for that need calling attention to. You protect them and the Jewish-focused Jews behind Hasbara by confusing the issues. I’m not saying that’s your design, but you can bet it’s somebody’s.

          1. Nick Dean,

            I am afraid that you have such a slight comprehension of the architecture of modern political power that it would be futile to speak to your assertions here.

            Israel is not the Jew’s “vehicle,” it is their trap, and dungeon. This vehicle is purely the design and construction of the global corporatist cabal. It is one of the most dangerous places on the planet to live, for both the native Palestinians and the occupying Zionists.

            Israel was designed as a thorn in the side of the mainly Muslim Middle East, as a provocation and constabulary state of the western corporatist interests.

            It would teach you well to read the Protocols and grasp the modus operendi of your enemy before yacking an empty yack.

            \\][//

            1. Your beliefs do not match the known facts, where Jews led the Zionist project from the start – against the general opposition of the leaders of other nations; and a single ‘global corporatist cabal’ is not know to exist, but if it did would not have any especial interest in Israel or relation to the ‘Protocols’ – even if that vague laundry-list, that does not mention Israel or Zionism if I recall correctly – is genuine.

              At least the guys blaming the Vatican for everything have a real-world entity for us to chase after.

              1. “Your beliefs do not match the known facts..”~Nick Dean

                My “beliefs” do not match the facts as YOU know them Mr Dean.

                Don’t give me this tepid “if” the Protocols are genuine pap. Do the Protocols mention Zionism? WTF? The title of the document is THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION. If that doesn’t lend a clue that they have to do with Zionism for you, then perhaps you need a refresher course in ‘See Spot Run’.

                If you can’t “recall correctly” because you have never actually read the Protocols, then do not speak to them until you have. I am sick of listening to arguments from ignorance here.

                You call it a “vague laundry-list”, although it is in fact a detailed and specific guide book on the means and methods for achieving global political power. It is an agenda that has clearly come to pass in every detail put forth in that work.

                Until you are prepared to make an argument here of more substance than the hot gas passing through the seat of your trousers Mr Dean, you are going to find it hard going here.

                “A supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries”
                ~David Rockefeller, Bilderberg meeting in Baden Baden Germany in June 1991

                \\][//

                1. @ hybrodrogue

                  The term ‘Zion’ for the Jewish nation was used long before the political movement for a Jewish nation-state arose in the 19th century..

                  Zionism is the movement for a Jewish nation-state. Remind me if that’s mentioned in the Protocols.

                  This trivia certainly is in the Protocols:

                  “We will tax everything that is printed on per sheet and the special tax will be secured by a required deposit. We will classify books with less than 600 pages in the category of brochures, with doubled tax…”

                  Remind me, when did that come to pass?

                  You quote Rockefeller but not the Protocols. Which is it?

                    1. Mr Dean,
                      To avoid the narrow formatting in these upper sections here, I have made a longer answer to your last two comments at the bottom of the page.
                      \\][//

                2. Mr. Rogue wrote:

                  If you can’t “recall correctly” because you have never actually read {–redacted–}, then do not speak to them until you have. I am sick of listening to arguments from ignorance here… Until you are prepared to make an argument here of more substance than the hot gas passing through the seat of your trousers Mr. {–redacted–}, you are going to find it hard going here.

                  El-oh-el! Damn if this doesn’t look like a familiar argument and something that I might have written myself about a different {–redacted–} theme, minus the “trouser gas” of course.

                  I’m am most curious as to what Mr. Rogue’s response will be if his debate opponent impulsively and violently rips up a printed version of {–redacted–} and uses it for bird cage liner, as opposed to rationally and objectively considering them one-by-one and as a whole. Even if deemed disinformation, nuggets of truth persist.

                  What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

                  P.S. Mr. Rogue is encourage to write what he will on his lame, disorganizaed, incoherent blog. I subscribe to nothing there anymore, not even out of morbid curiousity. I care not a wit about his trouser-less gas passing there. Mr. Rogue needs to refrain from letting his poor gas-passing habits seep into the discussion here on Truth & Shadows. [And gee, Truth & Shadows shouldn’t be the dumping ground for every marginally interesting yet irrelevant quotation that Mr. Rogue runs across in his “learned reading,” deployed as a cheap-trick for readers to falsely associate such wise words with Mr. Rogue’s own thoughts. Retirement has been bad for Mr. Rogue; too much time on his idle hands.]

                  //

                  1. As usual Mr Once’s irrelevance to the discussion at hand is duly noted.
                    As usual Señor has nothing at all pertinent to this conversation, just another limp attempt at slander and defamation.
                    And if as usual the anonymous entity decides to write a book length tome of flatulent bullshit here, let it be. The forum is open to twitchy web-bots such as he/she as well as lucid thinkers.

                    \\][//

                    1. If Mr. Rogue is going to be calling others out for “arguments from ignorance” from not having read the material in question, it is not “slander or defamation” to hold Mr. Rogue to the same standards that he demands of others. That Mr. Rogue conflates this as such, is a sign.

                      Mr. Rogue wants to play the victim by implying that “slander or defamation” were now instigated against him… because he previously spectacularly trapped himself by his own hypocritical actions of the same nature: “arguments from ignorance” from not having read the material in question [on a {–redacted–} theme.]

                      How seriously does a sincere seeker of Truth have to take discussion participants with such character assessments?

                      Mr. Rogue is under no obligation to be a Pavlov’s dog in responding to everything from all who post here. This includes his circus-act little buddy with the B.O. of a tube-sock, Mr. A.Wright, [who ought to be making an appearance any minute, now that his name has been invoked.]

                      //

                    2. Señor reminds me of those aliens in that Kilgore Trout story, who communicate by farting and tap-dancing.
                      The allegory fits him like Spandex tights.

                      \\][//

      3. Falk is primarily focused on Israel and was labelled antisemitic before he became a mild truther and would continue to be even if he recanted on 9/11.

        If most of the people discussing the Israel/Palestine conflict without a clear pro-Jewish bias were Jewish rather than Muslim and post-Christian Westerner – which is the case – then criticism of Israel, like 9/11 truth, would not automatically be tagged antisemitic. It’s because Falk is a renegade Jew, bucking the trend of the vast majority of his co-ethnics by not reflexively supporting the Jewish side, and joining the ranks of the mainly ‘gentile’ Israel-truth movement, that he is called an antisemite. Same with 9/11.

        There may be Jewish truthers who, like Gage, never mention Jews or even Israel, but are still called antisemitic, but this would not be any more revelatory than Coren calling Gage antisemitic (where what is revealed is the belief among Jews and other anti-anti-semites that the official 9/11 story is good for Jews, so to oppose it is bad for Jews or antisemitic).

    2. One leading example of a Jew who is a leading and dedicated 911 Truth spokesman and advocate is Elias Davidsson. There are others. Guilt and responsibility have nothing to do with race or ethnicity at all. Evidence points to WHOEVER did it.

      1. That would be false if any of those responsible were motivated by ethnic concerns and if their ethnic culture includes any teachings or traditions that would justify what they did. I reckon those conditions obtain. I see nothing in 9/11 that is not predictable from a realistic appraisal of Jewish history, culture and attitudes.

        And consider Coren. Quite clearly he perceives a Jewish interest in defending the official 9/11 story. When the ownership and opinion-making power of the major Western media is so heavily Jewish and pro-Jewish biases are just as evident across the board as in Coren’s attack on Gage, what chance does 9/11 truth have if we refuse to recognise the permanent saliency, even primacy, of ethnicity in politics?

        1. And you think perpetrators should get off on account of that? Civilization requires that they bear some responsibility to others, and not just react, however cunningly, to allay their own insecurity

  8. Who DID 9/11?
    Mossad? CIA? British Intel? Saudis?

    “The Intelligence Community” is a milieu – it is combined and mixed by mutual penetrations in all quarters. It cannot be separated by nationality nor agency, it is global in extent and extant. The driving power and ultimate recipient of intelligence product is the pinnacle of the power pyramid; the head of the global oligarchy. This conclusion is drawn from an understanding of the architecture of modern political power.

    \\][//

    1. There are no secrets. All can be gleaned by ‘open source intelligence’. This is why the effort to destroy the Internet as it is now constructed: To fold all of this intelligence back into the pocket of the global oligarchy.

      \\][//

  9. Dear Mr. McKee, Kudos for your efforts. I am amused by how “they played the ‘Jew’ card”. Glad to see you use your elbows at least once, in that the complaint itself puts at least one into their ribs. //

  10. Good and convincing job, Craig! It’s crystal clear that you merely had to “collect the garbage” Coren spewed out to nail him. But, I think we can take a lot of consolation from the fact that such a meat-handed hatchet job on a quite eloquent interview guest like Richard Gage won’t turn a single listner or reader against him or his position — in fact, it feels a lot like Mr. Coren was actually helping us do our job by showing the unfair and ludicrous extremes to which our detractors (who can’t credibly dispute the real facts and evidence) will go to attack us. Still, having said that, Coren and others who employ such transparantly despicable tactics are a disgrace to true journalism and need to go.

    1. I agree, James. I feel these complaints are important, though, because it’s not enough for people to see how unfair Coren was (let’s not forget that the people watching him are already predisposed to his variety of rhetoric), they have to see that there is an alternative perspective. Gage tried but was not given the chance.

      1. That’s true, Craig. But, surely Gage checked him out beforehand and knew somewhat at least what he was jumping into. That doesn’t excuse the Hannity type of “journalism” for a second, and, of course, Gage like anyone would prefer an interview permitting him to make and expand on his points. But, if you buy tabasco sauce, you’re not going to get pink lemonade, and shouldn’t expect to. Gage has more of a case with the unfounded accusations and ad hominyms — which the sponsoring organization is ethically, if not legally, bound to enforce standards against.

        1. My guess is that Richard is always prepared for hostile interviewers but that he didn’t know who Coren was before being ambushed. I think Richard just has his talking points and he tries to stick to them. In this case, he could have done a little better on one front: You can’t say that numerous journalists have been forced to keep quiet about 9/11 without expecting that you’ll be asked for names.

        2. Yes Craig, it should be kept in mind that Gage was unexpectedly confronted by Coren. No one should be expected to have the goods on any and every “journalist” who might pop up at some venue.

          How could Gage had done any better under such circumstances? He has no fault in this at all in my view. The onus is entirely on the fascist mouthpieces that jumped him like the thugs they are.

          \\][//

        3. “ad hominyms”–Hufferd

          Actually it is spelled ‘ad hominem’.

          Not a big deal James, just for your information.

          \\][//

            1. Yea James,

              Exactly! That’s the way I remember it too. I think of the candy. Lol

              \\][//

                1. Yup that too James, but once I saw his name in print, just thinking of the candy does it for me.

                  \\][//

      2. You’re doing your bit – the only way to defeat silencers like Coren is to hit right back with a louder voice this time. If Gage might have reached 500 pairs of ears make sure his message and Coren’s attempt to silence it reaches 1000 – and that Coren learns what he wrought.

        “You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That’s* the *Chicago* way! And that’s how you get Capone. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that? I’m offering you a deal. Do you want this deal?”

          1. Contrary to his Western PR, Gandhi always held in his other hand a gun, was always prepared to say that if the British did not allow for a peaceful settlement of his demands then a violent settlement would be necessary. In this he was perfectly right. But that wasn’t my point anyway…

              1. But not because of Gandhi. Once India and the rest had been colonized and an economic infrastructure installed the British were superfluous, co-opted native elites could do the job more smoothly.

                I wrote elsewhere about this,

                The system of transferring nominal authority without threatening the bankers’ actual control was developed and perfected by Sir Andrew Cohen at the Foreign office in the late 1940s. See Ronald Robinson, ‘Imperial Theory and the Question of Imperialism after Empire,’ and the same author’s contribution to Morris-Jones and Fischer (Eds), Decolonization and After: The British and French Experience (Cass, 1980), ‘Andrew Cohen and the Transfer of Political Power in Tropical Africa, 1940-1951.’ In the first of these Robinson asks whether decolonisation and the recognition of nationalist claims was not simply the ‘continuation of imperialism by other and more efficient means?’ Aye, and still is.

                ***

                Nowadays I’d say “the Jewish bankers’ control” or just “the Jews’ control” because it’s silly to deny an ethnic agenda when they have every damn government worrying about their interests over the needs of their native peoples’.

                1. Well, maybe a “World Day of Jubilee” could be legislated, since what was put out on loan has been repaid many-fold many-fold times, or something like that. Who knows? To say that superior gunpower always triumphs and is inevitably necessary for even approximate justice to ever prevail is more cynical than probably warrented. The Jewish bankers didn’t achieve their predominance, after all, through them being heavily armed globally.

  11. “While we are unequivocally committed to upholding free speech and academic freedom, we believe that SDSU’s association with Richard Falk undermines the university’s academic reputation and will provide a platform for spreading anti-Israel bigotry. It is one thing to allow this anti-Jewish, anti-American conspiracy theorist of the worst kind on campus under the guise of free speech and academic freedom; it is another thing entirely to encourage and endorse it, which by offering students credit for attending this speech is what SDSU is plainly doing,” said Nicole Bernstein, executive director of StandWithUS-San Diego.
    . . . . . . . . . .
    Deconstructing the Bullshit …
    Bernstein claims in her proximate sentence that “we are unequivocally committed to upholding free speech and academic freedom..” and then within the very same sentence begins to equivocate and make exceptions to upholding free speech. She does so through hysterical rhetoric, claiming Falk is “spreading anti-Israel bigotry,” which is not a fact but only her opinion. And it is opinion which is upheld in free speech and academic freedom.

    What is even more preposterous is Bernstein’s allegation that Richard Falk is “anti-Jewish”, given the fact that Falk is himself Jewish. And it is particularly twisted when Ms Bernstein includes the term “anti-American conspiracy theorist,” which is simply Orwellian in this application.

    That Ms Bernstein is so disingenuous in her complaints over Falk being given the chance to speak at SDSU, is one of the strongest arguments that SDSU has made the proper choice in bringing Mr Falk to the university, and a very good reason to find out what it is that has someone so insincere as Ms Bernstein in hysterics over this issue.

    \\][//

    1. So effing ridiculous. Since when does being anti- a COUNTRY constitute bigotry? There’s obviously a huge difference between the small few who run a country and the population in general, so for example, criticizing China’s government doesn’t constitute racism against the Chinese. I think that even in the USA, among the non-truther population, most of them don’t subscribe 9/11 truth to being “anti-American.” The more charitable of them seem to “admire our passion,” but feel we are “sadly misguided” on this issue. As my Leftie friend said to me re 9/11: “I think were simply asleep at the wheel.” When I mentioned ‘inside job,’ she said, “Well… I’m not THAT much of a conspiracy theorist…”

        1. People who buy into any form of ethnic exceptionalism tend to project that mindset on others.

          Ms Bernstein seems to buy the “Chosen People” meme as a ‘given’: “God gave this land to me” … that whole crock of worms. It is an affliction that effects many “collectivist” mindsets. My sister, a “Christian” feels that way about “The Saved”…

          They are all just so special…Lol

          \\][//

          1. The Israel supporter types do more than you mention.

            They not only feel the land was “given to them because of God’s chosen people status”, but because of horrors done to them as a group.

            Others on the fence tend to go with that angle, and support them more.

            We have to counter it by saying it’s a modern nation; that it should behave as such, just as all should. That adding to any aggressions by others (Palestinians, Arabs in general), which they insist they suffer with such fear, will not decrease the aggressions.

            The solutions are 3:

            1. Slow genocidal actions against their neighbours — which is what is occurring, and US, etc., is helping.

            2. Palestinian state and modernizing, stable other Arab nation states going through growing pains (Libya & Iraq under Gaddafi and Saddam in some ways and now possibly democratic Libya & Iraq, if not for destabilization effects; attempts in Egypt to destabilize and in Syria; a Palestinian state of the future). This still involves some terrorists reaching Israel, because resentments on either side will never die entirely, but it does mean better overall friendships.

            3. Destabilized whole region and reactionary Arabs (Saudis, etc.) which breeds combination of fanatics and oppression around Israel and continues terrorists without better friendships.

            1. “We have to counter it by saying it’s a modern nation; that it should behave as such..”~clarekuehn [speaking of Israel]

              I respectfully disagree. I think we need to insist that Israel is an illegitimate nation that should never have been established in Palestine. That the status of ‘nationhood’ should be revoked for this criminal Zionist fraud, and the land returned to it’s rightful owners.

              Impractical? Yea sure, the proper thing to do is always held as “impractical” by the pirates running the planet.

              What about ‘Big Daddy’ Amerika? Same thing, it should be dissolved back into it’s original state units that the Articles of Confederation established. The ‘Four Corners’ area should be ceded to the Native Nations {Indians}. And these things as just a beginning of maturing to the point that we recognize that ‘government’ is a racket, and the concept should be left behind in the trash heap of history.

              Impractical as well? Come Hell and high water, nature will achieve that which is ‘practical’ whether humankind has the sense to or not.

              \\][//

              1. At this point, it is there. At this point my statements stand. Let us go over the 3 points again.

                It is a catch-22 for Israel re terrorism from Islamic countries: radicals will come if they destabilize other nations (with US, UK, etc., help), or if they support other nations.

                However, promoting this awareness and helping them see they need to support other nations creates MORE stability in general for them.

                Capice?

              2. And, ipso facto, U.S. is an illegitimate nation for having pulled “regime change” in North America. Also, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc., etc., etc. Everywhere, really, without a statute of limitations of some kind.

                1. James, as nations, we are all the same. As malefactors, roughly the same — roughly. Hence, confuse the existence with the malefactions and we have a problem. Must separate the two issues for discussion and fight for legitimate stuff and vs. illegitimate stuff.

                2. This is so Mr Hufferd. There are no statutes with bearing, there is no law. There is only caprice.

                  We must all begin to recognize the distinction between “ideals” and “principles”. Ideals are driven by raw emotion. Principles are driven by reason.

                  \\][//

                  1. “Malefactors” (Latin, those who do bad) I would call criminals, and whatever nation they come from (not the same as “represent”), they are still just as much the criminals in a particular instance. If Jews or Zarathustrans were involved, they were, if not, not.

                    1. Malefactors, James, are in all groups. The problem in public dialogue is those who think that by talking of 1 set, they are doing justice, but by decontextualizing that 1 group’s malefactions, they end up radicalizing their own kind against that 1 group alone (and often start out that way themselves).

                      It is how anti-Islamicism spreads, and anti-Americanism, anti-Israel-as-anti-Jewishness, and on and on.

                      For example, I tweet the atrocities of all kinds. But often those who tweet each kind — not always, but often — are themselves bigoted. They cannot see that just because they want justice against real crimes and criminals in groups with separate reasons for those crimes (besides general poverty and ignorance), they are still promoting a bigotry: truth can be spread bigotedly; it is all in decontextualizing, where one group is represented for crimes within it, without representing the other side’s crimes they fear & suffer.

                    2. It’s not that complex. If someone steals my car, whoever stole it, regardless of nationality or creed, is the criminal. And furthermore, I am not a malefactor or bigoted for sayng so.

                    3. You speak as some of the most bigoted truthtellers do on Twitter. Hear yourself, James, then compare what I am saying.

                      Of course a crime is a crime, but decontextualizing each set (group, type) of crime leads to misunderstanding.

                      Let us use an example of reporting black crimes and bigotry toward whites in the USA. We can report them vigorously. But if we do not also talk of white crimes and bigotry we are, effectively, a bigot. That is what white supremacists do. This works the other way around, too, of course, and this is what black apologists do.

                      All sides are to blame in some way, for crimes done in their name. However, some groups are more beleaguered and some more deluded about the extent of risk from the other group, and as such, reporting crimes is insufficient to solve the standoffs: report and contextualize with the bigger picture, such as how Israel was created (if we are talking of Israel to the public, which we are here specifically), and also how ignorance and brutality of sects does run strongly in Arab-Muslim groups, and how countries can be destabilized and how terrorism and crime used by “intelligence services” for the more bigoted reasons in other countries and for upper-capitalism interests.

                    4. But, again, it’s not that hard. Anyone, and I mean anyone who in proven to have committed a crime (stealing my car, for instance) is a criminal, and I couldn’t care less what else they are — nor should you. I’m not blaming anyone for anything, or anything on anyone, so how could I be a bigot? That’s just name-calling!

                    5. James, my mentioning effective impressions people could have of bigotry on your part, and how you are spreading it if you don’t contextualize crime reporting, are both things which you should applaud.

                      I am pointing out that simple who-what-where reporting underplays the why and the what else. What is so hard about seeing that that makes people often focus only on the crime at hand and not on anyone else’s role than the group/person portrayed in the truth of the crime ad hoc? It also makes it hard for people to see their own contribution to a bigger problem.

                    6. Alright. Let’s say (for sake of argument) that the guy/lady who stole my car was a Taoist, but he was put up to it or paid to do it by a Hare Krishna because his evil uncle had taught him to hate and lash out at W.A.S.P.s since he was six years old. Now, who is guilty? Do I have any recourse to any extent? Is it better that I just let it go for the sake of peace? Should I refrain from saying that 12 of my neighbors saw Fred Albert do it and he accidentally dropped his drivers’ license at the scene? Is that what peace demands? Then what sort of “peace” is that, and “peace” for whom? I still don’t get how, according to you, being impartial is “in effect” being bigoted

                    7. Let’s say, instead, Hufferd, that someone tweets images of Muslims eating human hearts, of Muslim youth torturing puppies and cutting off cats’ heads and Muslim adults human heads, and of women whom Muslims have thrown acid at, and so on. And that that person knows that religious fanaticism is deeply embedded in why the Muslims did it.

                      And let’s say that I (or someone else) reminds the person that fanaticism exists in all religions, that the reasons for the atrocities are ignorance, sectarianism, resentment, taking suggestions from religious-cum-military leaders who want to keep the attitude of violence fresh so that people are good recruits, and that women are the bullied group par excellence of the world, just as blacks were the lowest in the USA, such that the name for them was niggers and that using that analogy, women are the worst treated group of the world, like those niggers in one place, as well as that women are bullied (atrocities included) for a whole host of justifications, and especially strongly using religious cultism?

                      And let’s say, Hufferd, that the person says Islam is (that is, is equivalent to) a cesspool of backwardism, that that person has never noticed the Muslims fighting this stuff, and that this person merely wants to fight such atrocities and says, “I am only reporting these crimes”, while also insisting correctly that “all religions have backwardism originally but Islam just doesn’t seem to want to move forward as the other religions have”, while at the same time, refusing all other information on other groups’ crimes as “ragging on” the military for its crimes (as mere PTSD or random sickos), or as far less of a worldwide problem — for Christianity’s crimes (that it’s only in backward areas, such as in Africa), and anyway, that most of these groups are fighting horrible Muslim groups?

                      Would it not be true that since the crimes exist, are currently rampant in Islamic groups worldwide, that Islam as a religion is particularly used in a backward way by many of its adherents, we should notice that giving our support for mere reporting of the crimes is not enough to show the person that they are in effect — no quotation marks necessary on that term, by the way — in effect promoting an impression which is bigoted, and not helping real solutions form in the mind?

                    8. In a word, yes. Pooling the worst from the Muslim world, the Christian world, the Jewish world, or any other world for that matter would give that impression. But the legal system works one case at a time. To cite a single atrocity committed by someone with a recognizably Muslim name or a recongizably Jewish name, or a Caucasian American, who has committed or been charged with a crime is standard and routine and shouldn’t or needn’t be curtailed as a paliative for any sensitive nationality because, to quote Leonard Cohen (possibly Jewish?) “Everybody knows, that’s the way it goes.”

                    9. James, the point is that any case we mention of any cruelty must have some sentence, even one, acknowledging not merely that the person thought that they were getting some evenness against some aggressor, had some justification, but that there are truly things which can be done outside the conflict itself — the back-and-forth — which can defuse the hurts.

                    10. Yes, Clare. But, easing hurts, and alleviating background conditions where we can, does not absolve crimes of whatever sort. We can’t stop prosecuting break-ins just because, unfortunately and people of an the same ethnicity as the law-breaker might be terred and their image as a group unfairly tarnished. Every ethnicity no doubts suffers somewhat or sometimes, but the alternative is anarchy and loss to all of protection of the law.

                    11. Don’t you care how to make things better? My excellent points about how to approach this with others are getting swamped in exactly the kind of anti-Zionist points which get lost in others’ pre-set bigotries either way (factual-based bigotry crimes or delusions).

                      Whatever.

                      Israel does have a right to defense; the issue is that there will always be need to defend on BOTH sides, and the q is — can a stable Pan-Arabism and Palestinian state co-exist with Israel, and they can. There will be terrorists from them anyway, for a long time, but it would reduce, as in any modern state. And Israel must own up to war crimes it does in fear and recognize that it foments more aggression by extreme acts of its own, but there would be some terrorism from it (though it does not call it that) for a long, time, but it would be stabler OVERALL.

                      That is the only way forward. This other way is only terrorism on both sides without good.

                    12. Alright. Let’s say (for sake of argument) that the guy/lady who stole my car was a Taoist, but he was put up to it or paid to do it by a Hare Krishna because his evil uncle had taught him to hate and lash out at W.A.S.P.s since he was six years old. Now, who is guilty? Do I have any recourse to any extent? Is it better that I just let it go for the sake of peace? Should I refrain from saying that 12 of my neighbors saw Fred Albert do it and he accidentally dropped his drivers’ license at the scene? Is that what peace demands? Then what sort of “peace” is that, and “peace” for whom? I still don’t get how, according to you, being impartial is “in effect” being bigoted — and doubt that it’s so.

      1. But Israel is an ethno-state which most Jews believe is necessary because they believe non-Jews’ default position is genocidal antisemitism. For those Jews Israel is naturally a near-identical proxy for Jewish security. It’s easy to see why those Jews would label as antisemitic their fellow Jews who join the mainly ‘gentile’ anti-Israel movement.

        Your criticisms need to come in earlier, at the point where Jews start to believe all other peoples are stupid, crazy, evil monsters, but that ship sailed 3000 years ago.

        Encouraging them to follow Baruch Spinoza, Simone Weil, and Gilad Atzmon and cease thinking the rest of humanity is stupid, crazy, evil, i.e. stop being Jewish, is about our best bet.

        1. But when one of their citizens or acolytes robs a drug store (I’m pretty sure it’s happened), or their intelligence agency comits an act overseas that results in death and mayhem, they still must be held responsible in international society. In other words, in so far as they refuse to accept the truth of their actions — if they did it — they’re living a lie and deflecting the blame to others innocent of it. If not guilty, they should support a real investigation that would absolve them. I personally don’t know which it is.

  12. By making this assertion, “At this point, it is there,” Clare does not recognize she is making the same argument of “facts on the ground” that the Zionist “settlers” use as an excuse for continually and indecently enlarging the Israeli footprint in Palestine for the past 60 years.

    This is in fact the “Peace Process”, that perpetual “negotiation” has achieved while the “facts on the ground” gobble up Palestine. One does not negotiate with tyrants and tyrannical systems – one commits to eliminating them, or one perishes.

    \\][//

      1. My reading comprehension is just fine Clare. If you mean the OPPOSITE, then you should re-write. You have said that “Israel is there” therefore we must live with that fact. I say that Israel is illegitimate and should be abolished. It is as simple as that.

        You may disagree, but you cannot state that you are not saying that which you have already said. You CAN change your construction and say it clearer, if you mean something else.

        \\][//

        1. How many times does something have to be repeated for you? I notice your replies are often hasty.

          BECAUSE there is a catch-22 — there will be some Arab and Israeli resentful terrorists either way, that is, in a destabilized region or in stable Arab nations and stable Israel — the argument must be to the pro-Israel AND pro-PanArabist supporters, that stability means LESS terrorism, not perfectly none, and also means better wonderful neighbours.

          Any argument less than this devolves into perfectionism, like the arguments which push for policing to the point of attempting to “eradicate” crime, which is impossible and which is not even approached come from mere policing.

          Capice?

          1. Oh yes, I do understand precisely what you are saying Clare,

            Yet you misapprehend that your stated proximate point must remain the ‘fact’ of Israel’s ‘existence’ – or the further assertions that rest on that base have no possible bearing.

            \\][//

  13. “If you insist on de-nationalizing the state of Israel, you are in la-la land.”
    -clarekuehn

    No, actually I am standing to the actual International Law. Israel was illegitimate from the beginning and cannot gain legitimacy by unlawful occupation.

    There is no proper “way forward”, when that way is predicated on illegitimacy. Again, you speak to REALPOLITIK, practical politics, I speak to the principles of law.

    \\][//

    1. And the principles of law are now that it is a nation. Its founding, like that of many nations, is shrouded in a whole bunch of things which are illegitimate.

      And I am speaking realpolitik, since that is what we face, and how we must move forward. If there were a way to go back, then we might talk of your point. You can mention that it was predicated on illegitimacy, but it will win nothing now, and in fact only alienate most people.

      We must seek an end to much of the bigotry (decontextualized crime reporting). As such, my points stand and must be integrated. Anything less is to effectively do nothing or increase the bigotry. Calling Israel illegitimate is merely academic now.

            1. It is not a matter of “the Arabs” v “Israel”. It is a matter of defeating the New World Order at its core. The real and final battle is against the Banking Cabal, this is at the center of the global corporatist empire.

              Both Israel and Amerika are nothing but garrison states for the global order, and their “enemies” are simply dialectical constructs for the strategy of gaining that final ‘SuperState’ envisioned in the Protocols.

              \\][//

          1. “All should be supported in peace.”–clarekuehn

            Peace at any cost is the price of admission to the New World Order. The remnant of humankind will have peace no doubt, but at what cost?

            \\][//

  14. The King David Hotel bombing was an attack carried out on July 22, 1946 by the militant right-wing Zionist underground organization the Irgun.

    Israel was created by force of arms and terrorism. The “legitimacy” given to this by the UN was the result of strong arm tactics by the US and Britain, it was a farce of pretense.

    This history is too clear to dispute. This history is too vile to be acceptable to people of conscience. There will be no legitimate way forward until the sins of the past are rectified.

    \\][//

    1. The sins of the past are rectified as context for the current crimes on both sides, yes. Truth is truth.

      But the current context OF the past is now that it is a nation and its actions are indefensible, in large part, against other nations around it, while theirs are also awful and might continue even if stabler, and the real way forward is to recognize this and talk to people of how having better nations around them not destabilization and retaliation or even pre-meditated aggressions is better even though some terrorism continues at Israel and from it.

      1. Let’s be frank Clare,

        For more than 60 years there have been attempts for get Israel to act in a civilized manner. Chit chat has no effect on the cat. It is a predator, and does not stand to reason.

        You will not convince anyone wounded by this beast to continue to turn the other cheek and make nice with these monsters. That is futile and farther from practical than enforcing international law, and abolishing this obscenity from the face of the planet once and for all.

        When all is said and done, standing to principles is the most practical path of all.

        \\][//

    2. And chances are 99 out of 100 that the piece of ground where you sit was confiscated by chicanery, too. Ipso facto, your state is illigitimate. In Canada, that argument actually is recognized in court. Here, not so much.

        1. “I was effectively making the same point.”–clarekuehn

          But the point is not effective.

          \\][//

      1. This is true Mr Hufferd, I addressed the illegitimacy of the US previously.

        We shall stand to true principles or we shall all perish. Realpolik is a devils game, and those who make pacts with devils are damned. I am not speaking in a religious sense here.

        Law predicated on illegitimate law has no legitimate precedence. Compound illegitimacy is not by some trick of time made legitimate, but only exponentially more illegitimate.

        Israel will disappear from the face of the Earth, or Earth will burn in nuclear fire. Practical politics be damned.

        \\][//

        1. Anyone who finds my last sentence above to be hyperbole should look up,
          “The Samson Option”.
          \\][//

  15. “The term ‘Zion’ for the Jewish nation was used long before the political movement for a Jewish nation-state arose in the 19th century..
    Zionism is the movement for a Jewish nation-state. Remind me if that’s mentioned in the Protocols.”-Nick Dean – APRIL 28, 2014 AT 5:52 PM

    The term Zion in fact goes back near four thousand years, long before the concept of ‘nation-states’ could even be imagined. The Westphalian nation state did not arise until the late 17th century. So the term Zion refered to the vague concept of a “homeland” for the bulk of centuries past, certainly not to the idea of a nation-state. The word Zion, etymologically is a Semitic term, dating back to the era before Hebrew and Arabic were so distinctly different as in the more modern eras that followed.

    As the “state” of Israel is not the fruition of the agenda, but in fact the entire world as “Israel”, it is only mentioned in the Protocols in terms of metaphor.

    Your mention of a trivial ‘tactic’ for the control of the press [taxing pamphlets] disregards the known fact that the Zionists own and control the mainstream press in all practical ways. Many passages in the Protocols most commonly cited, come from a document written long before electronic media became the standard mode of communication. However, before the postmodern era the Zionists had firm control of the printed press.

    BTW, my gravitar is no “hide-behind”, you are commenting to Willy Whitten when you speak to HybridRogue. Most of the main commentators of Truth and Shadows know this already.
    \\][//

      1. Douglas Reed’s THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION, is available as a PDF, free on the Internet Nick, I strongly suggest you read it, as well as studying the complete Marsden translation of the Protocols.
        \\][//

  16. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/protocols.htm

    This site presents a chapter from Douglas Reed’s THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION.
    As the author of this page asserts, “…is the most important book I’ve read in my search to make sense of the insanity at large in this world today, and of the probable “source” of the insanity. For me, the following chapter on The Protocols adds an important element of understanding to the highly controversial Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The following quote taken from the chapter is all too recognizable today.

    I agree that this book by Reed is the single most important book available today for understanding Zionism. And this must be augmented by study of the text of the Protocols themselves. – ww
    . . . . . . . . . . .

    To bring about this state of affairs compliant politicians are needed, and of them the Protocols say:

    “The administrators whom we shall choose from among the public, with strict regard to their capacities for servile obedience, will not be persons trained in the arts of government, and will therefore easily become pawns in our game in the hands of men of learning and genius who will be their advisers, specialists bred and reared from early childhood to rule the affairs of the whole world”.

    \\][//

  17. A passage of particular interest in the present, though it was written before 1905, says

    “Nowadays if any States raise a protest against us, it is only pro forma at our discretion and by our direction, for their anti-semitism is indispensable to us for the management of our lesser brethren”.~Reed
    \\][//

  18. I’ve noticed another thing with regard to Zionism and subtle media techniques: Ever notice how Israel is the only country that US and other world politicians referred to in the feminine? From McCain to Obama to everyone else inside the establishment, they always talk about how “Israel has a right to defend herself.”

    1. Yes Mr Syed,

      The “lady in distress” meme is subtly played by such language. This type of ‘personification’ of an entity psychologically infers, thus confers endearment.

      Mr Ruff recognizes the personality profile of Zbigniew Brzezinski from a passage from the Protocols. It is really amazing how many things are brought to mind about the world we know when reading the various ways and means detailed in the document. Not only the personalities, but the techniques and maneuvers done politically.

      I am again prompted to point out that much that is offered from the PR Regime as ‘analysis’ is clearly ‘design’, and part of an ongoing agenda. As Henry Ford remarked decades ago, “It fits with what has been going on..”

      I hope all here will take the opportunity to read at least that one chapter from Douglas Reed’s book at:
      http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/protocols.htm

      It is in that chapter that the idea of Zionism as uniquely Jewish is dispelled. I have spoken to this earlier in former threads on this blog. Zionism has nothing to do with any religion or particular ethnicity, it is rather a philosophy of “Might is Right” and “Ends justify the Means”; the philosophy of REALPOLITIK. That Jews are candidates for scapegoating, just as any other convenient ‘collaterally-damaged’ bystander is made clear in the pages of this most intriguing work; The Protocol of the Learned Elders of Zion.

      \\][//

  19. From the Protocols chapter posted by hybridrogue:

    Again, the document says

    “it is indispensable for our purpose that wars, so far as possible, should not result in territorial gains”.

    This very phrase, of 1905 or earlier, was made the chief slogan, or apparent moral principle, proclaimed by the political leaders of America and Britain in both world wars, and in this case the difference between “the word” and “the deed” of “the diplomat” has been shown by results.

    The chief result of the First War was to establish revolutionary-Zionism and revolutionary -Communism as new forces in international affairs, the first with a promised “homeland” and the second with a resident State. The chief result of the Second War was that further “territorial gains” accrued to, and only to, Zionism and Communism; Zionism received its resident State and Communism received half of Europe.

    The “deadly accuracy” (Lord Sydenham’s words) of the Protocol’s forecasts seems apparent in this case, where a specious phrase used in the Protocols of 1905 became the daily language of American presidents and British prime ministers in 1914-1918 and 1939-1945.

    /endquote

    Any problem there?

    hybridrogue …”Zionism has nothing to do with any religion or particular ethnicity, it is rather a philosophy of “Might is Right” and “Ends justify the Means”; the philosophy of REALPOLITIK. That Jews are candidates for scapegoating, just as any other convenient ‘collaterally-damaged’ bystander”

    — Don’t blame the Jews for what Jews blatantly are responsible for, invading, subjugating and genociding another people, but do let’s imagine crimes committed against the Jews so that we may feel sorry for them and angry about stupid, crazy, evil antisemites.

    No thanks, hybridrogue, I’m not buying that B.S.

  20. So Mr Dean,

    Shall we suppose that it was “the Jews” that were also responsible for the greatest genocide ever perpetrated on this planet?
    I speak of course of the genocide of the Native Americans.
    . . . . . .
    You sarcastically say:
    “Don’t blame the Jews for what Jews blatantly are responsible for, invading, subjugating and genociding another people, but do let’s imagine crimes committed against the Jews so that we may feel sorry for them and angry about stupid, crazy, evil antisemites.”~Nick Dean

    What is blatant here Mr Dean is your racist attitudes of holding an entire people to blame for the crimes of their leadership and willing the dupes who follow.

    It is attitudes such as yours, and the gall to state them publicly as you do here, that give idiots like Coren the ammo to make their own spurious claims.
    It is the ignorance of small minds such as yours that make charges of ‘collective guilt’ against whole groups of people.

    As I have pointed out, “antisemite” is a nonsense term, so I certainly wouldn’t call you such, but I will say that in my opinion you are a racist asshole.

    \\][//

  21. @ hybridrogue

    How come you get to generalize about Native Americans and the Jews you say weren’t responsible for their genocide, but I can’t generalize about Jews and the genocide I say they are responsible for? Why the objectively anti-‘gentile’ double standards?* And if antisemitism is racist assholery, what is anti-‘gentilism’?

    * A feature of your posts I already called attention to in the comment above.

    I don’t get the impression you’ve thought about these issues seriously, hybridrogue. Race and nation issues are at the bottom of 9/11 and to try and gloss over them is irresponsible.

  22. “I don’t get the impression you’ve thought about these issues seriously, hybridrogue.”~Nick Dean

    You are full of false impressions. I refuse to be lectured about ‘responsibility’ by an utterly irresponsible twit as yourself.

    You end your mindless tirade with this:
    “Race and nation issues are at the bottom of 9/11 and to try and gloss over them is irresponsible.”

    At the bottom of 9/11 is the impetus to begin a war of terror disguised as a “war on terror” for the purposes of expanding the global empire. It is based on the same issues I speak of when discussing the Protocols, the conviction that ‘Might is Right’ and that “Ends justify the Means” – the only ‘Racial’ elements are those injected into the spurious rhetoric of those behind this agenda. The only issues concerning ‘nations’ is the agenda to extinguish all current nations and create a global superstate under the total control of the maniacs running this psychotic scheme.
    And YOU Mr Dean, have become a dupe of this bullshit.

    \\][//

  23. @ hybridrogue.

    You for real, Willy?

    Even if, to repeat myself, there were any evidence for a global corporatist cabal with designs to extinguish all existing nations including Israel and create a global superstate (for which claim I still await evidence), that would be quite a BIG race and nation issue, would it not?

    ‘Might is Right’ and ‘Ends Justify the Means’ are methods, not motive or identity.

    To repeat myself again, I don’t say you deliberately use these terms to distract and confuse, but that is their only effect. They certainly don’t clear anything up. I’m sure someone somewhere is all the happier for that.

    Any response yet to my question about the Reed quote you rate so highly? Does Reed’s explication make sense?

    1. “‘Might is Right’ and ‘Ends Justify the Means’ are methods, not motive or identity.”~Nick Dean

      My point exactly Mr Dean. Anyone of any gender, cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious group can hold such maxims. However the motive, and methods and their ends are clear enough when one studies the history of these issues. And if you wish to remain ignorant of the clearly stated agenda stated in the Protocols, then that is ‘willful ignorance’ – worse than simple stupidity.

      You ask; “Does Reed’s explication make sense?” Indeed, if you understand the context it is made in.

      That there is a thrust for global domination is so crystal clear at this time that making an argument for such is futile, it is a prima facea phenomena that no longer needs arguments or proofs. If you can’t see this for yourself, nothing I say or cite will convince you.

      \\][//

  24. Look Mr Dean,

    You have already and continue to identify yourself as a reactionary anti-Jewish bigot. That there are in fact reactionary anti-gentile Jewish bigots is without question. Both sides make inflammatory remarks against the other. Especially the Talmudic Rabbis. I have studied their disgusting opinions for decades. But falling into the dialectical trap of becoming a mirror image of your enemy is utter nonsense, this is what the Nazis did, to match the claim of “the Chosen People” the Nazis designed the concept of “the Master Race”.
    But to go deeper into this history one finds that both sides of this dialectical were manipulated by Wall Street and the London financial elite.
    And it is in understanding this cabal of the elite global bankers that one discovers the agenda spoken of in my commentary. I do no rely simply on the lessons given in the Protocols to make my case. My case is made by history itself. Not the lollipop bullshit history of popular culture, but the real deep history revealed by people like Antony Sutton, Carol Quiggley, Eustice Mullins, and many others too numerous to mention.
    Just looking into the Eugenics movement that began in the late 18th century in England will give you the proximate cause of the claims of National Socialism of a “master race” based on Nordic genetics.

    You asked of my quote by David Rockefeller earlier, asking “which is it?” – meaning which, the Protocols or Rockefeller. It is both and more, but you will not find it in your little stinking hole of racist nonsense.

    \\][//

      1. You are quite correct Mr Hufferd, the name is indeed Carroll Quigley. And the book I speak to here is TRAGEDY AND HOPE.

        Thank you for the correction.
        \\][//

  25. Again addressing Nick Deans post above – APRIL 29, 2014 AT 3:09 PM:

    Beginning with;
    “it is indispensable for our purpose that wars, so far as possible, should not result in territorial gains”

    But goes on in Reed’s words:
    “The chief result of the First War was to establish revolutionary-Zionism and revolutionary -Communism as new forces in international affairs, the first with a promised “homeland” and the second with a resident State. The chief result of the Second War was that further “territorial gains” accrued to, and only to, Zionism and Communism; Zionism received its resident State and Communism received half of Europe.”

    Mr Dean by lack of reading comprehension now tacitly posits that the quote from the Protocols is contradicted by the history that followed.

    What is obvious from the construction of the statement from the Protocols is that the result of wars should not be territorial gains ‘other than those we design and put in place ourselves.’ It is so plainly obvious in context, that the “territorial gains” that resulted were part of the Zionist agenda, and set up the new dialectical paradigm of East v West, plus the added advantage of the second faze; the establishment of Israel, presenting another dialectical provocation of Arab Muslim v Zionist Jew.

    So yes again, what Reed is saying makes absolute sense when placed in context.
    …………..
    And I want to remind again, that one does not make an argument to a propagandist to change his mind. One counters the errors and techniques appearing as errors in order to educate the candid and lucid reader.
    If this were a personal and private conversation with Mr Dean, I wouldn’t bother. If he is sincere, then he is beyond redemption. If he is agitprop in training, he is ineffective beyond redemption.

    \\][//

  26. “The eugenics movement also attacked the idea of democracy itself. Many concluded that letting inferior persons participate in government was naive, if not dangerous. Providing educational opportunities and governmental benefits for everyone likewise seemed a misplacement of resources: one saves only the best cows for breeding, slaughtering the inferior ones, and these laws of nature must be applied to human animals. If a primary determinant of mankind’s behavioural nature is genetic as the movement concluded, then environmental reforms are largely useless. Further, those who are at the bottom of the social ladder in society, such as Blacks, are in this position not because of social injustice or discrimination, but as a result of their own inferiority.”– Dr Jerry Bergman

    http://ed5015.tripod.com/BEugenics72Bergman73Potter77.htm

    Note to Mr Dean, these people were neither Jews nor Zionist.
    \\][//

    1. @ hybridrogue

      “The eugenics movement also attacked the idea of democracy itself. Many concluded that letting inferior persons participate in government was naive, if not dangerous.”

      No need to blame eugenics for that, the original democrats believed in a narrow franchise. If eugenicists agreed they might be said to be supporting democracy, especially if they said less qualified people were more so in part because they were more self-interested.

      “Providing educational opportunities and governmental benefits for everyone likewise seemed a misplacement of resources.”

      I favour home-schooling and a National Dividend myself, but sure, answering the hypothetical question … if Montique still can’t read after 5 years at school, but funds are lacking for Timmy the gifted kid to take extra classes, I’d cut my losses with Montique and support Timmy.

      “one saves only the best cows for breeding, slaughtering the inferior ones, and these laws of nature must be applied to human animals.”

      You really believe this rubbish … that eugenics societies really talked about wanting to slaughter people?

      “If a primary determinant of mankind’s behavioural nature is genetic as the movement concluded, then environmental reforms are largely useless.”

      This is tautologically true. If a behavioural standard is 90% down to genes and only 10% environmental, it’s obviously more effective to try and boost the number of desirable genes in the population than adjust the environment – if you’re really interested in making that change. A lot of behaviours or traits split something like 50/50 from what I’ve read. Intelligence is often estimated to be more heritable than purely environmentally linked, 75% for adults according to a 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association.

      “Further, those who are at the bottom of the social ladder in society, such as Blacks, are in this position not because of social injustice or discrimination, but as a result of their own inferiority.”

      No scientist would make that claim. He’d take into account opportunities, discrimination and so on. Unfortunately few real scientists can be found today who will honestly look at the data on race and ability. When they appear: Herrnstein, Lynn, Rushton, Jensen, they are lied about and attacked, terrorized and criminalized.

      1. “You really believe this rubbish … that eugenics societies really talked about wanting to slaughter people?”

        You haven’t the knowledge to dispute what is historical fact Mr Dean.

        Francis Galton – who coined the term “Eugenics”:
        His goal was to produce a super race to control tomorrow’s world, a dream which he not only wrote about, but actively involved himself in promoting his whole life.
        Galton openly stated that his goal was ‘to produce a highly gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations’. 14 In an 1865 article, he proposed that the state sponsor competitive examinations, and the male winners marry the female winners. He later suggested that the state rank people according to evolutionary superiority, and then use money ‘rewards’ to encourage those who were ranked high to have more children. Those ranked towards the bottom would be segregated in monasteries and convents, and watched to prevent them from propagating more of their kind.

        From these simple observations developed one of the most far-reaching movements, which culminated in the loss of millions of lives. It discouraged aiding the sick, building asylums for the insane, or even aiding the poor and all those who were believed to be in some way ‘genetically inferior’, which included persons afflicted with an extremely wide variety of unrelated physical and even psychological maladies. Their end goal was to save society from the ‘evolutionary inferior’. The means was sexual sterilization, permanent custody of ‘defective’ adults by the state, marriage restrictions, and even the elimination of the unfit through means which ranged from refusal to help them to outright killing. This movement probably had a greater adverse influence upon society than virtually any other that developed from a scientific theory in modern times. It culminated with the infamous Holocaust and afterward rapidly declined.” – Dr Jerry Bergman
        . . . . . . . . . . . .
        “It culminated with the infamous Holocaust and afterward rapidly declined.”
        Not so, it simply rebranded and went underground, much like the Illuminati which rebranded and came above ground as the CFR.

        “Planned Parenthood” is a direct descendant of the Eugenics movement, and has worked in the open world wide doing the same work and having the same effect, on an even larger scale than ‘the holocaust’ – but filtered by rhetoric.
        \\][//

  27. @hybridrogue

    “That there is a thrust for global domination is so crystal clear at this time that making an argument for such is futile, it is a prima facea phenomena that no longer needs arguments or proofs. If you can’t see this for yourself, nothing I say or cite will convince you. ” hr

    I didn’t say you were wholly wrong. Globalization – the trend towards standardization of legal, commercial and cultural forms across national borders – is self-evident. But I asked you to defend the claim that there exists 1) a specific ‘global corporatist cabal’ with 2) a design to extinguish all existing nations including Israel.

    So who, exactly, is thrusting for domination of all societies including Israel? A ‘global corporatist cabal’ you say. I see Brussels bureaucrats assuming ever more power over the lives of Europeans. But are they doing it at the bidding of the board of Coca-Cola, BP or Microsoft? You have yet to show this. And where it’s clear that many other countries are growing less and less independent, who bosses Israel about? I see no foreign or corporate puppet masters dismantling Israel or assaulting its Jewish character.

    1. “I see no foreign or corporate puppet masters dismantling Israel or assaulting its Jewish character.”~Nick Dean

      But of course you do see that Israel and its “Jewish character” are supported by the Western Empire, despite the “appearance” that it is not in the West’s economic favor to do so. And you assume a ‘wag the dog’ scenario, as many in the alternative media do. But this is because the ‘wag the dog’ scenario is completely misunderstood in its historical context.
      In the book by William J Lederer, A NATION OF SHEEP, he describes in great detail the ‘wag the dog’ scenario as played out by Western Intel in the posture of ‘journalism’. These provocations carried out in South East Asia in the 1950′s and ongoing to the 1960′s eventually evolved into the full scale US invasion of Vietnam in 1964.
      But as Lederer explains, the dog is actually doing the waging of the tail. As it is the western intel services that set up the “theater” in which these phony provocations are staged for unwitting visiting western journalist, and then their reports a fazed back to the west as ‘eyes on the ground’.

      The same allegory can be said of the ‘appearance’ of the Jewish Lobby controlling Congress and the White House. There is the hidden hand of the financial elite puppeting both Amerika and Israel.

      You have a lot of puzzle pieces laid out on your table Mr Dean, but you haven’t been able to fit the pieces together to create a whole picture. This is because many of the essential pieces are missing, pieces that come from a longer history than you are willing to investigate.
      Just the fact that you have no idea that the Russian version of the “Protocols” are merely updates to earlier versions, some of which go back centuries. You have limited your knowledge by handwaving this history.

      \\][//

  28. @ hybridrogue

    “Mr Dean by lack of reading comprehension now tacitly posits that the quote from the Protocols is contradicted by the history that followed.
    “What is obvious from the construction of the statement from the Protocols is that the result of wars should not be territorial gains ‘other than those we design and put in place ourselves.’ It is so plainly obvious in context, that the “territorial gains” that resulted were part of the Zionist agenda, and set up the new dialectical paradigm of East v West, plus the added advantage of the second faze; the establishment of Israel, presenting another dialectical provocation of Arab Muslim v Zionist Jew.” hr

    The Protocol says,

    “it is indispensable for our purpose that wars, so far as possible, should not result in territorial gains”

    Reed forces his own meaning on these words when he assumes that the establishment of the Soviet Union and Israel were relevant to this quote and exceptions the Elders would have welcomed (even though the Elders seem to have nowhere else expressed an interest in Zionism). But dozens and dozens of other major territorial changes, regime changes, whole empires crashing down, mass migrations, and countries being wiped off maps could be cited from the same period following the Protocols’ appearance and contrary to the ‘indispensable’ needs of the Elders.

    So the Protocols had it all wrong. The Elders’ necessary conditions were not fulfilled at all – just the opposite. It is madness, sheer madness to cite this passage as proof of the Protocols’ value as a geopolitical map of the future! But then you also insist that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion(!), original title in Russian: “The Jewish Programme to Conquer the World”; wherein throughout the first person plural narrators refer to themselves as Jews and their marks as ‘goyim’, has nothing to do with Jews or Jewishness! You see only what you want to see, hybridrogue.

    1. “But dozens and dozens of other major territorial changes, regime changes, whole empires crashing down, mass migrations, and countries being wiped off maps could be cited from the same period following the Protocols’ appearance and contrary to the ‘indispensable’ needs of the Elders.
      So the Protocols had it all wrong. The Elders’ necessary conditions were not fulfilled at all – just the opposite.”

      You misread this history out of your own misplaced vanity Mr Dean,
      Cui Bono? A question formost in the mind of any forensic historian. Who benefited by these wars and upheavals you mention taking place after the publication of the Protocols? The answer is historically clear and final, the bankers who funded each side pitted against the other, and profited by manufacture war materials, their depletion and re-manufacture, and by profits in reconstruction of war torn cities.
      ALL of this as part of the agenda of the high cabal, whether they are branded the Illuminati, the Elders of Zion, CFR, or the Trilateral Commission.

      You say, “original title in Russian: “The Jewish Programme to Conquer the World”, but fail to recognize that this document is only an update of the same material as the Illuminati documents produced by Weishaupt in the 1700s, Nesta Webster compares the text to these, and other documents of the same kind that surfaced during the French Revolution.

      I dispute your charge of myopia and countercharge it is your own malady.

      \\][//

  29. @ hybridrogue

    “falling into the dialectical trap of becoming a mirror image of your enemy is utter nonsense, this is what the Nazis did, to match the claim of “the Chosen People” the Nazis designed the concept of “the Master Race”. “hr

    Ethnocentrism is a human universal. German pride during the Third Reich needs no special explanation. It existed because the Germans then were free to be normal human beings. Where some people today reject the idea of pride in their heritage and loyalty to their ingroup, that does require some explanation – and since only White peoples seem to feel that ethnic fellow-feeling and pride is wrong, an obvious hypothesis for investigation is whether a non-White, anti-White rival has hijacked their cultures in service of its own ends. Joshua Blakeney recently interviewed evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald and that question was much discussed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdNusP5amKc

    “But to go deeper into this history one finds that both sides of this dialectical were manipulated by Wall Street and the London financial elite.” hr

    It is a conspindustry myth that the National Socialists were funded by Wall Street and City of London bankers. I have written elsewhere … “where US bankers made relatively minor investments in the private economy of the Third Reich they were acting as profit-seeking international investors. So what? They did not fund Hitler or the National Socialists directly. See Veronica Clark, ‘Demystification of the Birth and Funding of the NSDAP’. This is in stark contrast to the way US bankers funded Lenin and later Stalin directly and with express ethnic and political goals.”

    Oh, and I’d be more inclined to think you were an honest and well-intentioned researcher if you’d leave out the personal stuff, name-calling and so on, HR.

    1. “evolutionary psychologist” Kevin MacDonald is a white supremacist and racist.

      I have debated MacDonald myself on his website. He blocked my commentary and then contacted me by email. We debated privately because he couldn’t debate me publicly as I proved his theories were bullshit. He became frustrated and ended our debate with a “fuck you”, quite an elegant summation by a so-called “professor”, Lol

      “Ethnocentrism is a human universal.” So is fear and loathing, but it is not praised as proper and just. And that is exactly what “ethnocentrism” is based on, fear and loathing of ‘the other’.

      “It is a conspindustry myth that the National Socialists were funded by Wall Street and City of London bankers.”~Nick Dean

      Antony Suttons research is impeccable and footnoted with ample citations to prove the case of Western funding of the Nazi regime-before and during WWII
      See also: Trading With the Enemy by Charles Higham about the continuing collusion of US industrialists and bankers, before and even during hostilities.

      “Oh, and I’d be more inclined to think you were an honest and well-intentioned researcher if you’d leave out the personal stuff, name-calling and so on, HR.”~Nick Dean

      Your misplaced comma before “HR” makes it appear that you are quoting me sans quotation marks.
      If your arguments are racist, saying you are racist is not ad hominem.

      \\][//

      1. ‘Racism’ is a neologism, possibly originating with Trotsky but certainly popularized by he and his acolytes. They used it to suggest that anyone who didn’t want to lose his nationality and culture and be conquered by the Marxists was stupid, crazy, evil. Trotsky, naturally, was quite a bit more tolerant of his fellow Jews who wanted to maintain their national and cultural particularity, even being an interested well-wisher of the Zionists ion the quiet.

        When you use the term, HR, you fatally compromise your opposition to globalism, the Empire, the Protocols and so on. If peoples that happen to be White have no right to their own identities and countries, then nobody does, and whomever else your non-Jewish ‘Elders of Zion’ want to invade, colonize or destroy, they can, and you have given away the simplest most appealing moral defense of them: that they have the right to be left alone and respected merely for who they are.

        1. “If peoples that happen to be White have no right to their own identities and countries, then nobody does, and whomever else your non-Jewish ‘Elders of Zion’ want to invade, colonize or destroy, they can, and you have given away the simplest most appealing moral defense of them: that they have the right to be left alone and respected merely for who they are.”~Nick Dean

          >..”they [Whites] have the right to be left alone and respected merely for who they are.” ??? Surely you jest Mr Dean. You say “left alone”? How can those who have been attacked and decimated by “Whites” generation after generation possibly be supposed to leave the poor white conquerors alone?

          What a ludicrous and scurrilous assertion you make here. It is so blind to actual history as to rate as criminally insane.

          I am a “white male” of Scot-Irish descent. I have no particular “identity” affiliation with this heritage emotionally, but find my pride in my unique individual person. This idea of “collective pride” is a form of collectivism, and herd mentality that I find repulsive. This is why I balk at the idea of “collective guilt”. To identify with “the white man” motif is to accept, knowingly or not the crimes of carnage and genocide perpetrated by those of our ancestry. I reject such spurious concepts. I am a sovereign individual thinking and acting in the world as I find it to be. That world is in a great part, a psychotic landscape ruled by maniacs of all creeds and colors. I continue to stand in defiance of this system as it is and where it is inevitably going, unless the enchanted and brainwashed come out of their trance.

          \\][//

  30. I have written elsewhere on why the ‘alternative’ media is perhaps more objectively racist (anti-White) than even the MSM:

    These people enjoy the high profiles they do precisely because they are hostile to White nationalisms, precisely because their opposition to nationalisms for peoples that happen to be White, fatally undermines their moral claims on behalf of their little Brown and Black pets. They are being used against their own aims. I have written elsewhere on the likes of Blakeney:

    “It’s not only that their position is objectively racist, denying to all peoples that happen to be White what they defend and promote for all peoples that happen not to be, and that this undermines the claim that e.g. Palestinians or Iraqis have a ‘right’ to live free and unmolested in their homelands. But by insisting that our former ethno states be transformed, against our known wishes, into ‘proposition nations’ defined by expressly universal standards, they create the ideological justification to intervene in other countries when these standards are challenged. Where loyalty to a people is replaced with loyalty to an idea that’s said to have universal truth, it becomes necessary to oppose alternatives to that idea, or that model of political order, wherever that opposition arises.”

    And there is a second reason these personalities enjoy a higher profile than someone like you, say, who could speak just as eloquently as they on the rights of Palestinians but would also say that White peoples should enjoy the same rights. And this too was touched upon in your conversation with MacDonald; your stance on these issues would attract White people in droves, yes because it is the moral and fair one, but also because we really want our place in the sun, too.

    1. There was no such word as “television” until around 1927, either. Does that make it a “neologism”? What kind of gism is “neologism”, anyway? Is there such a thing as a “paleologism”? “Neologism” sounds like a “neologism” to me! Also, if I stand by the rights to self-determination and secure economic viability for people undergoing pressure and thievery who happen to be darker-tone than this screen, does that have to mean their my “pets”? Sounds pretty pejorative and limiting of discourse to me! You can have your own opinions, but you can recast and hyjack the whole language to suit your own peculiar idiotology.

      1. Fair question, James.

        If Joshua Blakeney and Anthony Hall and the rest were really concerned with self-determination in a principled way, I think they would,

        1) let Palestinians and American Indians/ Canadian ‘First Nation’ members speak for themselves and quit playing Great White Pappy. They’d tend to limit themselves to speaking about universals or about their own ethnic groups

        2) would not try to undermine White people seeking mere self-determination for their ingroups

        Is that a fair answer? There is a double standard here, isn’t there? And there is a bit of arrogance in making some other people’s problem your problem – and focusing on it and becoming a more prominent spokesman on that issue than any member of the group of people you’re talking about …isn’t there?

        1. Researchers, writers, and scholars should express whatever they honestly find to be true in their research, without regard to whether their own particular skin color or patois and inhabitants of their little patch of the earth’s surface are favored, disfavored, or other wise by the results of their honest findings, whether these researchers, writers, or scholars happen to be green, red, brown, white, or purple and speak Ojibwe, Guarani, Urdu, Ainu, or Erse. It’s good that some of the above don’t bend their findings to simply favor their own herd, but express findings honestly even when those make out their own blood brothers as mass murderers, daylight embezzlers, sadists, and whatever else, especially since contemporary scholarship is primarily a western invention and, while useful, is less indulged in by non-westerners and non-caucasians themselves, and, although members of the western caucasian nations need to be told inconvenient and uncomfortable truths as much or more than anyone else, there are far, far fewer “non-whites” and non-western recognized and published scholars around to deliver it to them, and so honest caucasian scholars who are willing to seek and present the truth are often the only sources of same available. And when non-white or partially non-white scholars seek to enlighten the general public with the unlovely or damning truth, such as Ward Churchill or Eugene Dubois, they are, in fact, villified and reviled and demonized, to the detriment of the general public learning the truth of which they seek to inform.

          1. Ward Churchill was Boy Wonder as long as he stuck to bashing Whites and romanticising his obviously very minimal Indian-ness. He was shot down in anger when he threatened Jewish interests by talking about 9/11. Never heard of Dubois.

            A useful corrective to your standard view is Ricardo Duchesne’s articles and interviews. The reviews of his book, THE UNIQUENESS OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION are helpful, but unless you’re a far wealthier man than I, the book might be a bit pricey.

            The notion that school and college age White kids need MORE multicutural education, more reminders of past crimes committed by their ancestors, rather than less, is one you don’t often see on public message boards. Anthony Hall’s one-sided message that I go into below, is, I assure you, quite standard in its selective disprivileging and pathologizing of Western history.

            1. What is needed is more impartial truth, regardless who did what to whom.
              Look up Dubois, perhaps the leading African Diaspora intellctual of the past century. I’m beyond appalled — shocked — that you don’t recognize him.

    2. “…precisely because their opposition to nationalisms for peoples that happen to be White, fatally undermines their moral claims on behalf of their little Brown and Black pets.”~Nick Dean

      An absolutely vile and obscene statement. A statement only a White Supremacist would make or even continence.

      I reiterate, Mr Dean is a racist asshole, who attempts to dismiss the term “racist” as a dodge from his clear self identification as one.

      If Mr Dean wishes to avoid “being called names and such”, perhaps it would be best if Mr Dean washes his own mouth out with soap, before others have to lend him a hand in the task.

      \\][//

        1. Dear Mr. Dean,

          Membership on a coveted list that Mr. Rogue strived hard to make. “Winning friends and influencing others” the rogue-way.

          //

            1. Because Mr. Rogue’s character allows him the ability to lie, cheat, and weasel [long history on this blog] without a moment’s hesitation [proven again and again by his posting frequency; his inability to “think twice before posting once”], anything Mr. Rogue writes needs to be vetted, particularly his insults that are the mainstay of his argumentation techniques. //

              1. The readers of this blog will surely note that the entity calling itself Señor El Once, makes only rare appearances here anymore, and that those are primarily to continue the creatures defamation of my character with what are proven lies and exaggerations.

                He will make association with any sort of scoundrel or nutcase to take such opportunity to fart and tap dance.

                \\][//

              2. What Mr. Rogue calls “proven lies and exaggerations” have ~not~ been proven as such. Just Mr. Rogue saying it is, doesn’t make it so. Where’s the substantiation?

                Thus it falls into the category of “cheating” — if not worse — which actually has been a re-occurring theme with Mr. Rogue in debate.

                Also, “defamation … is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual…” Regardless of the harm to Mr. Rogue’s character, if a statement about him is true and is substantiated as such [and I have repeatedly done], then it is not defamation. It becomes a valid character assessment.

                “Tap dancing and farting in spandex tights? Defending the racist on this page? Defaming the character of others?”

                Mr. Rogue projects well his weaknesses onto others. But it is still cheating and lying.

                If Mr. Rogue wants to peg an agenda to my efforts, it would be these (and only these) definitions of “discredit:”

                – to cause to be disbelieved or distrusted
                – to reject as untrue or of questionable accuracy
                – to destroy confidence in the reliability of

                When my {-redacted-} hobby-horse finally gets a chance to romp, I want the words of sociopath Mr. Rogue already discredited in the eyes of the readers by his own historical, hypocritical, defamatory actions.

                If Mr. Rogue doesn’t want this to happen, then he is encouraged to modify his negative behavior such that he doesn’t leave fresh trails of ammunition that can and will be picked up, loaded, and shot back at him. Ignoring me would go a long way towards that end, too. Autodidactic sociopaths, though, don’t follow the advice of others unless cornered.

                Here’s something for Throw-Back Thursday (February 17, 2012 at 2:56 pm).

                //

              3. Once upon a lonesome weary I met a maid all daft and bleary
                Lingum whipt and left roadside she made a dreadful mocking bride
                She told wild tales I took as true ones that turn the bright sides blue
                But through the cranking dank ringed cleft I found the lies that there were left

                So now the bell of mordus rings and plates of merde the servants brings
                Mystical tidings mysterious things that hush the songs that the harpy sings
                Twelve knights of grace spoke not in haste but counsel to a finer taste
                We linger there and wonder wide where is center if side is side?

                The truth the truth the jester cried is neither black nor white but pied

                So now again we’re on the road

                Which is the prince which is the toad?

                And will it be that just a simple kiss brings a change of places…
                \\][//
                __________________

                Thank you Mr Once for bringing to my attention this poetic gesture on your behalf by yours truly on that page; it’s the best thing there…
                https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/the-fog-of-words-how-we-inadvertantly-reinforce-the-911-official-story/

                \\][//

                1. “Ah but who has the power to shame the intemperate with mere words??

                  A plague…a pandemic of curses follow thee like a pack of jackals on a moonless night ye hypocrites. Pass thee by me in silence rather than speak with the tongues of serpents…for the time is near and thou error is as the piles left by elephants, and the stench is worse.”~Magus Maverik

              4. Picking up Mr. Rogue’s ammunition from April 28, 2014 at 7:01 pm, reloading, aiming, and firing: “As usual [Mr. Rogue’s] irrelevance to the discussion at hand is duly noted.” So are the quotations from others with which he pads his overwhelming presence on T&S in the hopes of reflected brillance shining onto him.

                Seeing how Mr. Rogue enjoyed throw-back Thursday so much, here’s another from August 2, 2012 at 2:24 pm and written by me.

                [Different discussion participant] has made every single posting on the tangent Protocols theme from an admitted position of ignorance: he not having read them and not being prepared to write on them. How “irresponsible” is that?

                Not only have I been there and done that, I hear an echo in the April 28, 2014 at 5:32 pm comments from Mr. Rogue towards Mr. Dean:

                If you can’t “recall correctly” because you have never actually read the Protocols, then do not speak to them until you have. I am sick of listening to arguments from ignorance here.

                Mr. Rogue banties about the phrase “twitchy web-bots” but with no firm grasp on what such an entity is. A “bot” is an algorithm that doesn’t tire of going over the same themes again and again. As a bot, it has its goals/beliefs from which it can’t ever being convinced otherwise.

                A distinction must be made between a bot and a religious fanatic, the latter of which applies to me. I’m religously fanatical about Truth with a capital “T”, “a divine attribute and the foundation of every virtue.” Because Truth is being messed with and obscured with regards to 9/11, I make course corrections to my beliefs. A bot? Not so much. Moreover, other than my lone surviving {-redacted-} hobby-horse, I do tire of going over the same themes again and again. My patience runs thin. Because I stand behind my words and am organized, I’m becoming better able to avoid the tendium of carousel spins by providing a GOTO link, such as the Throw-Back references. Mr. Rogue? Not so much.

                Mr. Rogue isn’t a bot, except in a mildly obsessive-compulsive sense as an offshoot to his sociopath disorder. In fairness, if I was in Mr. Rogue’s boat of being retired, divorced, and living in his mama’s basement with his birds, obsessive internet participation would probably consume me, too. But I’m not. I have a life.

                At the beginning of this, I mentioned Mr. Rogue’s padding quotations. When discussions go into the technical nuts-and-bolts, Mr. Rogue’s found quotations serves him only so far. When his reference sources get shredded for being skewed, having errors, and having blatant omissions, Mr. Rogue doesn’t have enough “reflected brilliance” absorbed to carry on RATIONALLY, nor does he have the integrity to re-evaluation and course-correct his beliefs. [What was the phrase that Fonzie could never say: “I was wrrrruhruhruh. I was wrrraugh. I’m wrrrrooorooro…”]

                And now we have this dangerous piece of re-usable ammunition called “arguments from ignorance” that Mr. Rogue dropped relating to having the fortitude to read rationally and objectively (for nuggets of truth) the references that the opposition provides. I’m predicting that the lucidy of Mr. Rogue [as evidenced by all his responses to me in this thread but also historically] will quickly turn into the “ludicrous.”

                Because I’m a fair and honest fellow, it doesn’t bother me forearming debate opponents with my game plan, my references, my speculative 9/11 opinions. In fact, I want them prepared, because that’s the only way they’ll be able to argue in a coherent, lucid, rational fashion that might convince me of my errors. I’ll then make the course-correction and offer public apologies.

                Although I abhor winning by a technicality, such as debate opponents defining standards for debate that they hypocritically don’t abide by themselves: I’m not a bot; my patience is waning; if my debate opponents are proven hypocrites (or worse), I’ll take the easy win early to get back to my life, because it really won’t be a case of me re-loading and shooting their own ammo, but of them having buried the land-mine themselves that they then proceed to step on.

                //

                1. Great epistemic errors like Sirens call from those treacherous stony shores…

                  Circe sips a glass of wine, fire in her breast – smiling at her victims, who are so weak of mind and spirit that they deliver themselves to her barren still born mercy.

                  \\][//

        2. “You’re on my IGNORE list, Mr, er, Scots-Irish.”~Nick Dean

          Fabulous, let’s see if you can hold to that.

          Mr Once will surely be watching to make sure you don’t make “a liar” out of yourself if you are compelled to answer one of my comments again. He keeps count ya know. He’s the resident beancounter here.

          \\][//

  31. Veronica Clark’s article is worth reading, HR. It’s a summary of other people’s research from official contemporary sources. I once thought the same as you, I read Sutton and Marrs and all the rest. Clark deals with Sutton and his sources quite satisfactorily in one of the Spingola Specials, but don’t ask me which.

    “Trading With the Enemy by Charles Higham about the continuing collusion of US industrialists and bankers, before and even during hostilities”

    I see nothing to answer or explain here. Why shouldn’t businessmen in America trade with German businessmen. It is quite different to ‘funding the Nazis’ – the usual conspindustry wail. Higham’s hysterics about ‘Nazi control’ of the BIS for example, as if National Socialists would supernaturally dominate any international project they participated in, turning Brits and Americans into mindless slaves is just bizarre. Push and pull plus cooperation between free agents was the real story. So F.ing what?

    A lot of they hype trades on post-war media-crafted prejudice that the National Socialists were something diabolical and totally beyond normal comprehension. But the reality was quite mundane and humane. Fetzer and his Real Deal colleague, Joshua Blakeney have some shows on the Biggest Lie about the Third Reich.

    1. “A lot of they hype trades on post-war media-crafted prejudice that the National Socialists were something diabolical and totally beyond normal comprehension.”~Nick Dean

      But that is my whole point Mr Dean, the Nazis were NOT special in their acts and atrocities. The collusion of elite industrialists with the Nazis makes that point vividly clear. All sides were diabolical and totally beyond normal comprehension: All sides were led by psychopaths. The leaders on all sides were and remain war criminals.

      Deana Spangola is hit and miss, sometimes spot on and sometimes over the rainbow in the land of OZ.

      And as far as you citing the charlatan Jim Fetzer here, it is no feather in your cap. He has never had an original thought bother his empty head.

      \\][//

    2. According to Nick Dean, Veronica Clark’s article is worth reading.

      Let us look into this;

      According to Veronica Clark, “The Sidney Warburg story is pure fabrication.” This is her analysis and conclusion. According to Michael Collins Piper,

      “Many of those who worship at the altar of this nonsense cite a flagrantly-fraudulent document of shadowy origins entitled Hitler’s Secret Bankers, ostensibly written by one “Sidney Warburg,” one of those “Jewish bankers.” But this document, as we’ve said, is a fraud.

      The late Dr. Anthony Sutton’s Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler has promoted this theory, based in part on the Warburg travesty and has given further institutionalization to this mythology–truth be damned.”

      But Sutton approached the Sidney Warburg book as a forgery, and provided a very nuanced analysis of the myth of Sidney Warburg.

      Sutton pointed out that many of the then-little-known facts recorded in the forged book are accurate. The forgery was thus sophisticated and required inside knowledge. Who forged it? Why would James P. Warburg claim as a forgery a book he hadn’t read, why would he avoid the key question [who could have forged it and why?] and divert discussion away from “Sidney Warburg” to an anti-Jewish book Sonderegger published in 1947, and why would he publish his affidavit in the Memoirs of Franz von Papen? Sutton explored these and other issues at length and came to the conclusion that the forgery was most probably by someone with inside knowledge of a war in preparation, and this person hoped for a public reaction against the Wall Street fanatics and their industrialist friends in Germany—before it was too late.

      Sutton didn’t need a forged book to make his case; he analyzed it because its contents and the circumstances surrounding it prevent anyone from dismissing Sutton’s argument using a guilt-by-association argument.

      http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/hitler_nsdap_funding
      . . . . . . . . . .
      Having read Sutton’s book ‘Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler’, I must agree with the forgoing. Sutton’s work is meticulous and careful, in fact sublime scholarship. Veronica Clark entirely misrepresents Sutton’s examination of the ‘Sidney Warburg’ affair.
      One has to read Sutton’s book themselves to know this to be the case. There is nothing in the slightest dubious about Sutton’s research or analysis.

      \\][//

  32. “How can those who have been attacked and decimated by “Whites” generation after generation possibly be supposed to leave the poor white conquerors alone?”

    In response to Kevin Barrett (and Anthony Hall) and their making similar racial revenge excuses for empire and genocide I wrote this,

    KB said … “they (‘the white people’) overran …”

    You are always careful to distinguish between e.g. Jews, Israelis and Zionists (and even between Zionists and ‘extreme Zionists’), but when it comes to White people you make no distinctions at all between the ‘innocent’ and the ‘guilty’ or the ‘guilty’ and their descendants and instead suggest a policy of racialised multi-generational revenge:

    “the white people [because of] their crimes of the past few centuries, should [not] be entitled to live unmolested in” their homelands today.

    People should check out your interview with Hall about his book, EARTH INTO PROPERTY, to see why I don’t share your enthusiasm for his approach. I’ll go into it here because it’s relevant, my concerns with that interview are the same as my objections to your arguments here. Hall said his purpose with the book was to put the War on Terror and globalisation generally into their ‘proper context’ — as late features of the age of European expansion.

    But this is way off, comically so, especially when it all boils down, if the interview is representative, to retailing the sufferings various non-White peoples endured during the period at the hands of various White peoples: loss of numbers, living space, autonomy, traditional lifestyle — it’s fair to say the discussion of the book was like an extended version of your first paragraph in comment 4, above.

    [i.e.:”…all peoples everywhere are entitled to live unmolested in their homelands and to seek to secure their own existence.” OK, so where is the “homeland” of the “white people”? Until ten generations ago, it was the northwest fringe of the Eurasian continent. Then they overran most of the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand, and tried to overrun Kenya, Southern Africa, and Palestine, and ended up exterminating perhaps a hundred million people and occupying land whose area was tens of times greater than their original homeland. And the parts of the world they didn’t exterminate and occupy, they cruelly subjugated. This story is told most concisely in Alfred Crosby’s book Ecological Imperialism (which should be read alongside Sven Linqvist’s “Exterminate the Brutes”) – for a longer version check out the books of Anthony Hall. So according to your theory, the white people, despite their crimes of the past few centuries, should be entitled to live unmolested in the northwest fringes of Eurasia, which is their homeland. “]

    There are many problems with this approach, for example: All of history is full of wars, most wars are sold by lies and for the profit of the few; All of history is full of conquest, colonisation and genocide; All cultures and periods of history are marked by a tension between the universal-seeking and the independency-seeking tendencies; Asians and Africans were colonising parts of Europe and enslaving Europeans before, during and after the period in question; Asian, African and Native American groups were invading, colonising, enslaving and slaughtering each other before, during and after the period in question, quite apart from whatever Europeans were up to; The group that can most plausibly be fingered as the chief ‘ethnic’ architect and intended beneficiary of the W.O.T. and contemporary globalising trends is not White, it originates in south west Asia. It also played a prominent role in funding and profiting from the ‘European’ age of expansion, so EAE was clearly not a project of and for White people; And, obviously, when White peoples today suffer losses in numbers, territory, sovereignty, cultural integrity, you tell us to suck it up, that we deserve it, or that it doesn’t matter anyway.

    [Kevin Barrett once told me that I should care as much about the security of my people’s continued existence as about the colour of my socks! But, oh, the Palestinians!]

    … The point is, it cannot be true to say that Hall ‘puts things in proper context’ if his picture first has to be surgically excised from the true historical background to conform to a pre-ordained racial agenda that we know to be a falsification, non-explanatory, and likely to promote racial conflict today (e.g., in this thread you use precisely this dishonest reading of history to justify contemporary aggression against White peoples).

    Of course, Anthony Hall is a Marxist academic, so dealing in this poison is his day job, but what’s your excuse?

    /endquote.

    1. “e.g., in this thread you use precisely this dishonest reading of history to justify contemporary aggression against White peoples.”~Nick Dean

      I am a “White peoples”, bucko. I do not justify “contemporary aggression against White peoples,” but in fact see no contemporary aggression against whites. I see attempts to defend against the global empire, by many peoples of all colors races and creeds. The Amerikan people themselves, a melting pot and composed of a great many “White peoples” is at this very moment under the attack of a militarized police state. This whole bullshit of framing everything in a racist meme is a complete misconstruction.

      This is what is wrong with racist thinking. If you want to dismiss the fact of this police state domestically and its global footprint, you will remain irrelevant and bathing in the filthy bathwater of a bygone history that you never knew.

      \\][//

    2. It is important to note, for example, that the transatlantic slave trade, besides being dominated for its duration by Jews out of South-West Asia, not White people, was founded by Jews on that very first journey of Columbus.

      Jews financed Columbus in 1492, principally Luis de Santangelo, and five or six other Jews accompanied him on the virgin journey. One of the Jews was a Hebrew scholar, an express goal of the expedition to begin tracking down the fabled ‘Lost Tribes of Israel’ – could you get more Jewish? Another of the Jews, Gabriel Sanchez was responsible for launching the transatlantic slave trade. He came up with the idea of capturing hundreds of the Caribbean Indians to sell as slaves in the Jewish-dominated market of Seville.

      It was a trade that Jews out of Asia had dominated in Europe for centuries, ‘slave’ being a variant of Slav, of course. But even though Asians had been enslaving Europeans for centuries at the start of the American era (and a different set of Asians – the Barbary Corsairs – would continue the tradition into the 19th century), and even though Asians would go on to found and monopolize the transatlantic slave trade, dishonest and duped people blame Whites, endlessly and mercilessly.

      One of America’s few serious equal-rights anti-racists has a video on the subject here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZqSMzOyEPU

      1. “even though Asians would go on to found and monopolize the transatlantic slave trade, dishonest and duped people blame Whites, endlessly and mercilessly”

        and its corollary,

        “even though Jews were behind 9/11, dishonest and duped people blame Muslims, endlessly and mercilessly”

        The two are linked because until White people make a self/non-self distinction between themselves and Jews, and get over the idea that to do so is waycist, “like as in slavery, dude,” they won’t ever see 9/11 clearly. White people think Coren is one of them, and that he’s defending them. They don’t know he’s consciously or unconsciously defending the party he knows is guilty, that he’s a prt of and won’t betray. And that’s why it’s so infuriating that 9/11 truthers accept the hectoring from Scots-Irish and fat Texan kibitzers – race and nation have nothing to with 9/11:

        1. And here I thought Coren was infuriating because of his manifest unfairness and unwarrented attacks on Gage and the 911 Truth movement as a whole. I thought that was the consensus of people participating in this blog. But then, I never stopped to consider that I was infuriated because he linked or delinded caucasian peoples to or from Jews (who I thought were, contemporarily, multi-racial already). Boy, was I off, according to Mr. Ethnic Science!

          1. Coren assumes Gage is hostile to Jews even though Gage never mentions them, but only investigates 9/11 sceptically … Coren attacks 9/11 truthers as antisemites and 9/11 deniers .

            I am not the only one here to see a Jewish connection to Coren’s fulminations:

            Craig McKee assumes ‘9/11 deniers’ is a deliberate association with lolocaust truthers. Is the lolocaust a central pillar of modern Jewish identity?

            ruffadam quite plausibly suggests that Coren is so personally involved in the debate about 9/11 that he wishes harm or death for those on the opposing side … what could motivate that kind of hatred?

            ruffadam says that the US or Canadian government would be murderously hostile to “Jew haters” and a “Holocaust deniers” and would see them as “enemies of the state” … is that because Jews DON’T run the US and Canada for their own interEsts, or because they DO?

            1. They do. But the international central banksters who pull the puppet strings are hardly practicing religious Jews. Regardless of their ethnic background, their national loyalty is to control and power and their creed is the most efficient and uncompromising possible employment of amassed wealth and their compound interest-exacting monopoly to perfect and consolidate the same.

            2. If Mr Dean understands the manifestos of “Domestic Terrorists” as defined by the current military industrial complex, he would grasp that it is not exclusively “Holocaust Deniers”, and “Antisemitics” that have gained such classification, but also “Radical Environmentalists”, “Defenders of the Constitution”, “States Rights Advocates” and a laundry list of others.

              Making the assumption that “the Jews run the US”, is again to only see the surface appearances of the real situation. I disagree and have made my arguments to that assertion. Mr Dean refuses to see the larger global conspiracy for the New World Order, despite a long history of disclosures of such, even by the minions involved in putting this structure in place.

              My critique and exposition posits that all current nations are under the thumb of an interlocking directorate of financial and corporate interests with a singular head, being the Rothschild Zionist Cabal. I see the US as the main constabulary state for global policing with the partnership of NATO in assistance as deputy members. I see Israel as the constabulary stronghold in the Middle East.

              I care not that Mr Dean claims to have me on IGNORE. I will speak to his nonsense nevertheless. It is a most peculiar nonsense for this particular blog, one rarely spouted here until recently. The particular Racial meme projected by Mr Dean is to my mind most disturbing, one that falls right into the trap that Mr Coren attempts to lay for 9/11 Truth members. I find it difficult to see this as mere coincidence, as I find most coincidence to be suspect. Mr Dean’s flambe truffle is the perfect provocation for the likes of Coren. He can point to Truth and Shadows now and highlight some of Mr Deans remarks with that ‘aha’ gleam in his eyes. And anything else said here will be ignored.
              So thank you Mr Dean for your tip of your trick top hat and pulling out a rabbit wearing a swastika armband.

              \\][//

        2. “even though Jews were behind 9/11, dishonest and duped people blame Muslims, endlessly and mercilessly”~Nick Dean

          More hyperbole from our resident racist Mr Dean. That the Israelis and dual citizen neocons were involved in 9/11 is not questioned here. It is the exclusivity of the charge that “the Jews were behind 9/11” that is gross misrepresentation of the facts. Muslims WERE involved in the case of Saudi Arabian participation. Pakistanis were involved. And the whole thing, as a systemic psyop was done on approval of the Banking Cartel – NOTHING of this scale is done without that approval.

          \\][//

      2. Sure that’s right Mr Dean, the South was composed exclusively of Jewish slave holding plantation owners. {Satire} That’s why they were able to rush there in droves to ‘reclaim’ there own holdings as Carpetbaggers at the end of the Civil War…{Satire complete}.

        Make my day Mr Dean, ignore this post.

        \\][//

  33. I am curious as to what other readers here think might be the result if the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council were to decide to look into Mr Mckee’s complaint, and as part of this they decided to look into Mr McKee’s blog — and happened on this particular thread. Or even if Coren was notified and decided to check out this blog himself. Any number of scenarios can be imagined of how this page might come to their attention, Clare tweeted Coren himself early on.

    So what might be the ramifications if the unfortunate racist and anti-Jewish remarks made here by Nick Dean were to be highlighted by Coren. Could he be trusted to note the counter arguments made here against Mr Deans flatulent diatribes? I doubt it. I doubt also if the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council would give much weight to the fact of mine and Mr Hufferd’s attempts to reason with Mr Dean. I think they would see Deans remarks and instantly find merit to Coren’s assertions of “antisemitism” as part of the gist the Truth Movement as represented on this blog, by a newcomer, Mr Dean. I think it would be a convenient excuse to dismiss Craig’s appeal. I don’t think there is a fair view by these organizations anyway as far as the 9/11 issue is concerned. What began as a long shot could very well be administered a mortal blow by the oh so timely appearance of Mr ‘Race Theorist’ Dean.

    For all we know, some minions of Coren’s have already copy and pasted selected morsels from Mr Deans flambe souffle.

    \\][//

      1. As I have pointed out before, I am suspicious of coincidences.

        How Mr Dean just happened to show up here is certainly a question worth pondering. Double agents are an extant situation on the blogosphere. To simply presume Mr Dean chanced upon this article by happenstance, seems by the nature of this affair to be naive. I would say circumstantial evidence would posit that he was directed here in some way. It just too conveniently coincides with the whole meme of our detractors that the Truth Movement is a hotbed of “antisemitism”.

        What are the chances of this being pure chance?
        \\][//

  34. Mr. Dean, we’ve explored your views on “white pride” and “Jews” quite enough. I agree with others who have stated that it is wrong to blame an entire group of people for the actions a few, whether they be “leaders” or “bankers” or whatever. And that’s as far as I want to dip my toe into those waters for now.

    For the rest of the participants on this thread: it strikes me that the more you all engage someone who you feel is racist or whose sudden arrival is suspicious, the more you give them a vehicle to expound on the very views that you fear might be used to discredit this blog.

    So the discussion of Mr. Dean’s views has reached an end on this thread. Please change the subject and move on.

    1. Thank you Mr McKee,

      On that heading, I rest my case.

      I would still be interested in exploring the works of Antony Sutton further here, but will put a hold on that if your wish.

      \\]][//

  35. Mr. Dean, you will notice that you have submitted two comments that have not been approved. This is not because I wish to censor you or to treat you unfairly, it is because I believe your views have already had a thorough airing on this thread (in fact they have dominated it). It is time to move to other things. I welcome comments that don’t go over this ground further.

  36. “If my sons did not want wars, there would be none.” Gutle Schnaper,
    Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s wife.
    . . . . . .
    I am afraid that the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create and destroy money. The amount of money in existence varies only with the action of the banks in increasing or decreasing deposits and bank purchases. Every loan, overdraft or bank purchase creates a deposit, and every repayment or bank sale destroys a deposit… And they who control the credit of a nation, direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people.
    Reginald McKenna
    a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, addressing the shareholders as Chairman of the Midland Bank, at the Annual General Meeting in January 1924.
    . . . . . .
    From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution.
    . . . . . .
    It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.
    Winston Churchill
    “Zionism versus Bolshevism”, Illustrated Sunday Herald (London), February 8, 1920, pg. 5
    . . . . . . . . . .
    \\][//

    1. . . . . . . . . . .
      Zionism and Bolshevism are two heads of the same hydra.
      . . . . . . . . . .
      \\][//

  37. For the benefit of the readership here on T&S, this appears to be the genesis of the story that Israelis {Jews} were given prior warning of the events about to take place in NY on 9/11:
    . . . . . . . . . . .
    The Israelis who were warned hours before 9/11

    *** The leading Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, confirmed today that at least two employees at the Israeli-based telecoms company, Odigo, knew what was about to happen two hours before the the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre were attacked on 11 September 2001.
    The warning was immediately passed on directly to Israeli and American security services. This all happened before the attacks took place, yet the intelligence services and the military have claimed that they were not prepared. ***

    Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

    Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two workers received the messages and immediately after the terror attack informed the company’s management, which immediately contacted the Israeli security services, which brought in the FBI.

    “I have no idea why the message was sent to these two workers, who don’t know the sender. It may just have been someone who was joking and turned out they accidentally got it right. And I don’t know if our information was useful in any of the arrests the FBI has made,” said Macover. Odigo is a U.S.-based company whose headquarters are in New York, with offices in Herzliya.

    http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=520

    \\][//

  38. To address the comments of Señor El Once on May 2, 2014 AT 12:54 PM:

    > “if I was in Mr. Rogue’s boat of being retired, divorced, and living in his mama’s basement with his birds, obsessive internet participation would probably consume me, too. But I’m not. I have a life.”~Señor
    . . . . . .
    More of this faulty characterization of myself by this fanatic wind-up wanker.
    I do not live in a basement. I do not live with my mother. My participation on the internet is not nearly as obsessive as this hysterical entity is with me.

    There has only been one short comment on this thread by Señor el Turgid that has not been an attempt at character assassination against my person.
    . . . . .
    Let us look into this:

    > ”When my {-redacted-} hobby-horse finally gets a chance to romp, I want the words of sociopath Mr. Rogue already discredited in the eyes of the readers by his own historical, hypocritical, defamatory actions.” ~Señora — May 1, 2014 AT 7:08 PM

    What is interesting here is that the entity wants me to be “already discredited in the eyes of the readers”.
    Now why could this be? Why would he/it need to have my person discredited prior to the entity’s exposition? The answer is obvious — the entity knows it has no case that can be proven by reason, so it must eliminate and discredit any lucid challenger by defamation beforehand.

    That Señora is such a dolt as to make this so crystal clear on T&S, no longer surprises me. The entity is so drowned in hysteria now it blabbers on and on without a thought as to what it reveals of its own psychopathic intentions.

    What will surely come from all of this is that the entity will have completely discredited itself – having come a long way in already accomplishing this – before it ever gets a chance to let its stick-horse of a hobby-horse romp.

    \\][//

    1. Mr. Rogue calls me:

      – “fanatic wind-up wanker”
      – “hysterical entity”
      – “Señor el Turgid”
      – “Señora”

      And then has the gall to write within the very same sentences that ~I~ am attempting “character assassination”?! Not just another example of Mr. Rogue being a “cheater” and “hypocrite,” but also demonstrates his mysognostic streak that permeates his insults.

      What is interesting here is that the entity wants me to be “already discredited in the eyes of the readers.”
      Now why could this be? Why would he/it need to have my person discredited prior to the entity’s exposition? The answer is obvious — the entity knows it has no case that can be proven by reason, so it must eliminate and discredit any lucid challenger by defamation beforehand.

      If the answer were so “obvious” to Mr. Rogue, he would have gotten it correct, like from reading what I wrote. Mr. Rogue is not really as bright as his poorly formatted quotations from others would lead us to believe.

      It isn’t that Mr. Rogue is a lucid challenger. He’s not. After his reference sources that he quotes to support his contention are shredded, Mr. Rogue becomes “lucidity challenge,” as extracted at the beginning of this comment with his “irrational” name calling.

      Mr. Rogue lies, cheats, and weasels, particularly when cornered with weak and faulty arguments. (Examples available upon request.)

      Mr. Rogue is a hypocrite, as proven with his “arguments from ignorance” statement regarding the protocols visa vis Dr. Wood’s work. Mr. Rogue doesn’t have the integrity to take down legitimately in part — let alone the totality — of his opponent’s references (e.g., Dr. Wood, nuclear reference material). Leading to more dissembling lies, cheats, and weasels.

      Sure, Mr. Rogue is not an agent and never really was in my book, because hell, I disagree with less than 5% of what he posts. Just pushing his buttons. He might not live his his mum’s basement, but he does use her mailing address and contact telephone number. What other alternatives are there, then, to explain Mr. Rogue blithely spouting little lies and cheats, whose exposure is like the aforementioned landmine that he himself buried and then is forced to trod upon and discredits him?

      Textbook sociopath. Mr. Rogue doesn’t see it as lying, cheating, or weaseling. And he’ll lie, cheat, and weasel some more to twist things around.

      I’m tired of the carousel rides. My patience has run thin.

      When my hobby-horse comes prancing into view, I want Mr. Rogue locked in the smelly barn of his blog biting his tongue.

      But what I want and what I’ll get are two different things.

      Therefore, assuming the worst that Mr. Rogue ain’t going away, I want Mr. Rogue prepared to give his “lucid arguments” that — if they really are so lucid and valid — have no need of more instances of lies, cheats, and weasels. Were Mr. Rogue not such a sociopath, I would be adding that Mr. Rogue should admit when he’s in error and when his grand view of 9/11 requires amending.

      “Convince me or let me convince you.”

      Yep, Mr. Rogue is expected to be an objective, fair, rational, reasonable, honest, debate opponent here. Failing that, he assassinates and discredits his own character.

      //

      1. Señor cannot make the obvious distinction between ‘colloquialisms and slang insults’ v ‘substantive accusatory slurs’.

        It should go without saying that if someone calls another a “motherfucker”, that this is not meant to seriously assert that the person has had sex with his mother.

        These allegories {farting tapdancing – humorous titles describing the entity by non d’plum} are given special and excessive weight from Señor’s perspective, when in fact they are minor compared to the substantive accusatory slurs meant to seriously malign my character and honesty.

        He continues to call me a “liar” and has yet to point out a single specific lie that I have supposedly made. Where’s the substantiation?

        \\][//

            1. Yes Mr Hufferd,

              That was a plum quote you have added there. Straight as a plumb line, in fact sublime, and subliminal in the same instance. Instant karma is fruit of the loom from a distant tomb.

              \\][//

        1. Welcome to the Petri Dish.

          Oh, I’m sorry OwenMeister, this sample has already been analyzed.
          Your report is in the mail.

          \\][//

        2. Gotta love the quality personalities that line up in support of Señor El oh el.

          Lol
          \\][//

          1. It is not “lining up in support of SEO” but “lining up against Mr. Rogue.”

            And speaking of loving the quality personalities that line up in support of Mr. Rogue, we have so much to choose from: the proven liar, the proven cheat, and the proven weasel… All the traits of sociopath.

            //

          2. I think of that old prayer; “O’Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.”

            Is Seenyor a godsend or what?

            Lol … an idiot has been divinely delivered unto me as a plush-toy nemesis.

            \\][//

  39. These incessant attacks and slurs from Señor on T&S reveal the entity to be in a mode of obsessive hysteria. I have indeed kept a journal of this madness on my HR1blog, on a page devoted to this nonsense. But it is meant as a historical record of this maniacs antics and blithering, not anything to do with an obsession on my part, but a defensive log of counter commentary.

    The current thread on T&S is revelatory to my assertions here. The entity has thrown several, at least five, temper tantrums on that page that were completely unprovoked by anything I said that could possibly have anything to do with the entity itself, other than the fact that I responded back showing this to be the case. This jejune squalling from Señora, intending to defame me, does the exact opposite, this creature defames itself. And of course I find this delightful to no end. The creature is making itself a bed of thorns that it will have to sleep in hereafter. Maxwell’s silver hammer has turned to shit.

    What is Señora asserting here? That I have lied about something? What is it that I have lied about? I have seen no instance of the entity making a single specific charge, only assurances that he has many compiled in some ‘HR1 Dossier’. I have read a lot of theories and speculation put that I am “sock puppeting”, an allegation only backed up by empty and scurrilous speculation. The entity counts the number of comments I make and asserts this is some proof of my being a “Q-agent”, when it is nothing more than his jealousy that I am free to stay engaged and have wide ranging knowledge on quite a number of topics.

    When I point out ramifications that could arise from the issue of a thread topic, I am sometimes accused of “hijacking” the thread. But I hardly ever fail to show how I think it follows by a sequence of points that I include when introducing a proposition. I think it adds to a lively discussion, after all, Mr McKee’s articles are well constructed and complete. After a few remarks on these points and the ones that stand out for oneself, it is only natural for rumination of how other things tie in with the ideas in the original text, and as in most open conversations among people it takes on a life of its own. At any rate the case of ‘hijacking’ is closely tied to the beancounting that the entity is so convinced can prove some statistical proof of bad intent.

    And on the other hand the entity can itself lay down a long highway of verbosity that almost inevitably leads to nowhere. Ofttimes these things can run on to thousands of words and manifest nonsequitur. And yes we can define such as the classic Argumentum Verbosium. And the entity will inevitably claim that it is because myself and others cannot stay attune to a complex argument.

    But it is not the “complexity” of the argument that makes it spurious, it is because the entity does not actually prove its points, and takes wild leaps of speculation to bridge points that are already themselves but a string of suppositions.

    I offer for proof of my assertions here, this blog itself. Hardly a thread has gone by here without some bizarre voodoo hoochiecoo, a great portion of it, allegations against my integrity.

    The entity complains of making snide play with the names I use here for him. This is small and lite wordplay, that can not be fairly compared to the charges that I lie and dissemble, or try to fool with rhetoric. And I would point out that is is hypocritical to make any complaint of calling names, when the names he uses are serious charges of “cheating” and “lying”, or attempting to hide the truth of some matter.

    I will add that I get mail at my own address. I do not like telephones, so didn’t have on for a long time. I do have one now, but few have the number. Don’t call me, I’ll call you.

    \\][//

    1. “Mr. Rogue is a hypocrite, as proven with his “arguments from ignorance” statement regarding the protocols visa vis Dr. Wood’s work. Mr. Rogue doesn’t have the integrity to take down legitimately in part — let alone the totality — of his opponent’s references (e.g., Dr. Wood, nuclear reference material). Leading to more dissembling lies, cheats, and weasels.”~Señor

      And Just what is this “ignorance” I am accused of having? It is the spurious charge that I do not know, and have not read and understood Wood’s arguments. And this assertion is made based on an affair involving False Advertising by Mr Once that the book had information beyond that which is found on her website. It does not. And going into the facts of this affair again, after time after time explaining it, is indeed a fucking carousel.

      I know Wood’s work well, and when I went through physical book, I found nothing at all of any substance whatsoever that was new or different from the website. I informed the entity of this and offered to send the book back to him in pristine condition. As I have detailed previously, I offered to send the Book back to him. His refusal to take it relieved me of any and all obligations that might have been standing.
      One obligation that Señora seems to think I still owe is a ‘chapter by chapter rebuttal’ of the Book. This is preposterous under these clear circumstances. After being conned into this ‘deal’, I find it is all based in pretense and misrepresentation, and I am held liable to some ‘obligation’?
      Nonsense, I owe the entity nothing at all in anyway whatsoever.

      As with this instance, all of his other charges derive from his deluded and fevered imagination.

      \\][//

    2. I wrote [May 2, 2014 at 4:27 pm]:

      Mr. Rogue lies, cheats, and weasels, particularly when cornered with weak and faulty arguments. (Examples available upon request.)

      Mr. Rogue, unable to be patient and complete his argument within one comment, replied with three on T&S: May 2, 2014 at 5:14 pm, May 2, 2014 at 5:53 pm, and May 3, 2014 at 11:42 am. Within the first comment, he writes:

      What is Señora asserting here? That I have lied about something? What is it that I have lied about? I have seen no instance of the entity making a single specific charge…

      Readers should note Mr. Rogue’s play-acting the innocent or the forgetful, senile participant, because during the debates Mr. Rogue was called on each instance of a deceitful statement immediately after they were published.

      At the end of his last comment, Mr. Rogue requests examples.

      {SEO} continues to call me a “liar” and has yet to point out a single specific lie that I have supposedly made. Where’s the substantiation?

      Ho-hum. So many lies to chose from, and this wasn’t even a full tally of Mr. Rogue’s more dubious efforts.

      The one lie that I will promote here is that Mr. Rogue — as part of his weaseling out of the agreement to objectively review Dr. Wood’s book — created the “false advertising” straw man with respect to the lack of content differences between the book and the website, and then lied about having debunked the website and Dr. Wood’s theories. According to his straw man logic, if no substantial differences exist between book and website, no book review was allegedly required.

      Assume for a moment the “false advertising” claim and that the book were a complete subset of the website. If Mr. Rogue really had debunked the website or found sources that debunked it web-page-by-web-page, then he could and would have re-published those efforts, provided links to them, and avoided months of discredit to his character. Because he never re-published such thorough and complete efforts in the T&S debates, his COTO home court, or on his blog, and cannot produce a URL to a source (other than Dr. Greg Jenkins, whose efforts were not thorough or complete), we can deduce this boastful claim from Mr. Rogue was a ~lie~.

      Returning to the “false advertising” assumption, Mr. Rogue has admitted to ~not~ finishing reading the book, and gave no indication as to what chapter he actually made it to. Moreover, Mr. Rogue’s frustration with the material led him to physically destroy the book, so he has nothing to reference today. Thus, he has no basis for his claim, and by default the assumption is invalidated.

      Of course, this little “false advertising” Rogue circus act came after many months of unfruitful weaseling using other tactics.

      Mr. Rogue boasts without links:

      I have indeed kept a journal of this madness on my HR1blog, on a page devoted to this nonsense. But it is meant as a historical record of this maniacs antics and blithering, not anything to do with an obsession on my part, but a defensive log of counter commentary.

      Morbid curousity had me revisit his blog after finally unsubscribing a couple of weeks ago. In the same weekend as the three T&S comments date-stamped above, Mr. Rogue made 23 dubious comments pertaining to me or elements of my nuclear 9/11 argument on his blog. [Sarcasm] Clearly, it has “not anything to do with an obsession on [Mr. Rogue’s] part.” [/Sarcasm] El-oh-el. Maybe this should be tagged as another ~lie~.

      As for Mr. Rogue’s claims of his blog being a historical record, readers won’t find postings from me, nor any back-and-forth debates, nor consistent and dutiful links to where comments were made. Occasionally, Mr. Roge does quote-mine from me to re-frame out-of-context in a dubious manner. Ergo, it fails on what it is meant to do as a historic record. And even in its alleged purpose of being “a defensive log of counter commentary,” what will stick in the readers eyes are the many “offensive comments” made by Mr. Rogue that begin to clearly paint himself as a misogynist, homophobe, and worse. Not just against me, but against his former home court, COTO.

      Here’s where I pick up dropped ammo from Mr. Rogue:

      The creature [Mr. Rogue] is making itself a bed of thorns that it will have to sleep in hereafter.

      Mr. Rogue writes:

      The entity complains of making snide play with the names I use here for him. This is small and lite wordplay, that can not be fairly compared to the charges that I lie and dissemble, or try to fool with rhetoric.

      The “small and lite wordplay” to which Mr. Rogue refers has often been used knee-jerk fashion to substitute for a substance-filled response, undermines what substance he might offer, and in more recent times has taken on serious misogynistic undertones.

      Agreed that the charges of lying, dissembling, and fooling with rhetoric cannot be fairly compared with his “small and lite wordplay”, because the latter can’t be proven, but the former was and is.

      Substantiating my accusation of Mr. Rogue dissembling, Mr. Rogue writes:

      Señor cannot make the obvious distinction between “colloquialisms and slang insults” v “substantive accusatory slurs.”

      This is very clever framing on Mr. Rogue’s part.

      For the moment, remove the adjectives, the accusation is that I cannot make a distinction between “colloquialisms & insults” versus “slurs.” Indeed, I don’t, because they are pretty close the same in my books.

      Re-framing this properly, Mr. Rogue cannot make the obvious distinction between “colloquialisms, slang insults, and slurs” versus “substantive, substantiated, accusatory statements.” The former isn’t ever really proven and is offered only as a tactic to illicit an emotional response to derail the discussion into a flame war. The latter is proven and is offered for the accused, if sincere and honest, to correct the record, to apologize if applicable, and to amend their ways.

      If Mr. Rogue were called “a liar, a cheat, and a weasel” out of the blue and if it was left at that, Mr. Rogue would certainly have a case about this being “substantive accusatory slurs.”

      However, when these same words are accompanied by the specifics of (a) what the lies were, (b) what the cheats were, and (c) what was being weaseled on, “substantive accusatory slurs” become “truthful descriptions of character”, and that makes them far more damning. They are indeed “serious charges” and should have been met with substantiated corrections and behavior changes. To have met them with “not meant seriously” slang insults and slurs, as was Mr. Rogue’s habit, served to validate the charges and set them in concrete.

      Mr. Rogue writes:

      And Just what is this “ignorance” I am accused of having? It is the spurious charge that I do not know, and have not read and understood Wood’s arguments.

      No, and this demonstrates a “cheat” on Mr. Rogue’s part. The true argument is for nuclear means on 9/11. Dr. Wood’s work is used primarily as a convenient tool to collect together lots of pieces of anomalous evidence for serious and objective consideration. Just like Mr. Rogue did not step through Dr. Wood’s book chapter-by-chapter or her website page-by-page, Mr. Rogue did not step through section-by-section my work that stands on the shoulders of Dr. Wood and others. Oh, sure, at one point Mr. Rogue gave a fair response to a 12-point mini-thesis on the nuclear theme. His responses were countered and shredded, and in fact help comprise the work from me. Technically, the ball has been back in his court, but another cheat on his part is acting as if my arguments have been disposed.

      Mr. Rogue wrote:

      I know Wood’s work well, and when I went through physical book, I found nothing at all of any substance whatsoever that was new or different from the website.

      First of all, Mr. Rogue admitted that he didn’t finish reading the book and no longer has the book to serve as reference today, so his findings are suspect.

      Secondly, Mr. Rogue had the benefit of my book review and my assessments well before he had a copy in his hands. Readers should look up Mr. McKee’s June 2, 2012 article on T&S, “The Judy Wood enigma: a discussion of the most controversial figure in 9/11 research”. My comment from June 4, 2012 at 1:55 pm re-enforces in a major way the telegraphing of my intentions with Dr. Wood’s book.

      Disproving Mr. Rogue’s “False Advertising” ploy further, here’s a quote from my comment from June 7, 2012 at 4:56 pm, which is before Mr. Rogue received his copy.

      {Mr. Rogue asked:}

      “Besides being made of paper and ink, what is the substantial difference between the information on the web and this book? You have never made this clear.”

      The website was never completed. It even has notes from 2006 saying various pages are still under construction. Many errors from the website were fixed in the book, which is one reason why the book should be considered the final source. The book provides as near to the most definitive statements on various concepts as we can get from Dr. Wood (until addressed in version 2 of the book or something on her website.) This being said, definitive statements are few and far between, as are definitive connecting of concepts. But if you want to peg Dr. Judy Wood for saying or supporting anything as of today, the book is your nearest source. Go review my June 4 2012 at 1:55 pm posting. The correlation of pictures to map positions in her book is vastly superior to her initial attempts on the web, and worth the price alone.

      Thirdly and most imortant of all, it doesn’t matter whether or not the book had anything of substance new or different from the website. The task was to objectively review the book (or the website) for the good, the bad, and the ugly.

      So Mr. Rogue dissembles here in order to distract from the fact that he weaseled out of it.

      I informed the entity of this and offered to send the book back to him in pristine condition. As I have detailed previously, I offered to send the Book back to him. His refusal to take it relieved me of any and all obligations that might have been standing.

      Ho-hum, such blatant cheating and weaseling.

      After the objective review [which never happened], the requirement was to pay-it-forward or pass-it-along. Therefore, if Mr. Rogue had the funds to return the book to me, he could have just as easily sent it along to someone else and fulfilled at least that part of his obligation. Mr. Rogue was communicating at one point with Dr. Jones who would have made an excellent candidate, and I even suggested such. I also recommended Mr. Adam Ruff.

      One obligation that Señora seems to think I still owe is a ‘chapter by chapter rebuttal’ of the Book. This is preposterous under these clear circumstances.

      No, it wasn’t preposterous. Still, Mr. Rogue has been relieved of his obligation by me after over half a year of being patient. By his dissembling, it was clear that I was never, ever going to get that which I had commissioned. And by that point, even if I did, I would not be able to trust it, for Mr. Rogue can’t be trusted. Not that bad and ugly wouldn’t have been found, but that the remaining good that Mr. Rogue would have been obligated to acknowledge would cause huge problems for the other theories-du-jour that he promotes.

      Curious readers should look for Mr. McKee’s January 11, 2012 article “When did they know? 36 Truth leaders on how they awakened to the 9/11 lie”, which is about the timing of HybridRogue1’s first arrival at T&S. My comments of January 25, 2012 at 3:04 pm and January 27, 2012 at 4:28 pm would be of particular interest, because I telegraph in a major way what I had been doing with Dr. Wood’s book and would likely do in the future.

      Of course, this January article is followed by a solid five months of Mr. Rogue negatively reviewing Dr. Wood’s book without having read it before an offer of the book with conditions was extended during the discussion to Mr. McKee’s June 2, 2012 article, “The Judy Wood enigma” (around June 7, 2012). By the time the discussion happened under Mr. McKee’s September 12, 2012 article, “Ignorance trumps ideas during annual 9/11 ‘discussions’: a reluctant rant”, Mr. Rogue is in full weasel mode. Refer to my comment from September 25, 2012 at 2:19 pm that re-publishes original conditions.

      After being conned into this ‘deal’, …

      “Conned into this deal?” El-oh-el. My comment of June 6, 2012 at 6:00 pm under “The Judy Wood enigma” shows exactly how Mr. Rogue was “conned into this deal.”

      My comment of June 6, 2012 at 6:00 pm shows exactly how Mr. Rogue was “conned into this deal,” el-oh-el. Here’s a choice quote from the offer email of June 7, 2012.

      And you can bet that if you accept it and default on the conditions, I’ll use it as well-spent cheap excuse to (figuratively) bloody your nose again and again on the theme of Dr. Wood. And even if you do not accept it with the conditions, I have every intention of making hay (and bloody noses) out of that situation as well. Win-win for me in getting at nuggets of truth.

      [After being conned into this ‘deal’] I find it is all based in pretense and misrepresentation, and I am held liable to some ‘obligation’?

      Although I didn’t link much in this comment (to avoid this going into moderation), sufficient information has been given for curious readers to validate my words. Cheater that Mr. Rogue is, the “basis in pretense and misrepresentation” is entirely on his side.

      Nonsense, I owe the entity nothing at all in anyway whatsoever.

      Mr. Rogue owes me nothing at all in anyway whatsoever [except that I say he has overstayed his welcome at T&S.] The absolving of his obligation has been agreed to for quite some time. If Mr. Rogue has any residual obligation, it is to his God (Truth), to his neighbor (the readers of T&S, COTO, his blog), and to himself (his own integrity) to carry out that which he promised.

      I just can’t resist postings these final choice examples of Mr. Rogue lying.
      [1] 2012-09-26 at 11:01 AM {email from Willy Whitten}:

      You’re such a fuckin’ idiot {SEO}, but you’re right about one thing; I don’t have to deal with you on T&S…and I have made my last remarks to you on that thread… I am seriously finished with you asshole.

      [2] April 11, 2013 at 3:32 pm, “The Judy Wood enigma”

      I am off of this lunatic’s endless carousel ride.

      [3] “PROLOGUE New Wave 9/11” (2013-04-19), Mr. Rogue’s article on his former COTO home court that his actions got it deleted:

      The entity calling itself ‘Señor’, can go around and ’round on it’s creaking carousel for as long as it wishes. Alas, I am through with this.

      If there be any more spins beyond these final words, we’ll know someone grabbed the handles and was manually pushing the carousel into its revolution.

      //

      1. On T&S; May 3, 2014 @ 11:42 am, I challenged the entity calling itself Señor el Once to prove a single lie that he accuses me of.

        As I have not purposefully told any lies on the blogs, the entity is going to have an impossible time proving one. It is going to have to construct some rhetorical framing, that will likely be another grand stand of verbosity, some churning logorrhea of foaming fulmination.

        And this is exactly what is offered here in Señor El Once’s response of May 5, 2014 AT 3:19 PM:

        Nothing but spin, and no clear unambiguous proof of a single lie. This is why I demand an example of one – just one, to avoid these spinning cartwheels, farts and tap dances.

        The kicker is this — “I just can’t resist postings these final choice examples of Mr. Rogue lying.” — and the examples the entity uses as “lies”, simple frustrated attempts to untangle myself from this obsessed maniac. A frustration that continues to this very thread, wherein the entity uses the same technique of false frames and deluded interpretations to make claims that I “lie, cheat, and weasel”

        Just one example of false framing:

        –“Of course, this January article is followed by a solid five months of Mr. Rogue negatively reviewing Dr. Wood’s book without having read it before an offer of the book with conditions was extended during the discussion to Mr. McKee’s June 2, 2012 article, “The Judy Wood enigma” (around June 7, 2012).”~Señor

        The assertion here that I was “negatively reviewing Dr. Wood’s book without having read it..” is obvious dickspittle. I was reviewing Woods works based on her website – which Señor admits has no substantive difference as to Wood’s assertions.
        But it was this very basis that led me to finally relent to Señor’s high pressure sales tactics and agree to receive THE BOOK. So yes indeed at one point, after being harangued for weeks if not months, I yielded to the hype and thought, ‘why not?’ .. why not get the book and see for myself if there wasn’t something new and compelling within its covers. But there was nothing. It was all hyperbole and crass salesmanship.
        I was happy to take receipt of the book. After all, it took having THE BOOK in my hands by which I was able to discern that it was indeed a scam. So again, as previously described, any and all perceived obligations by el Kabong, are delusional.

        The entity referring to itself as Señor still hasn’t offered as single instance of an unambiguous “Lie” that I have told, that doesn’t have to be “interpreted” by his spinning rhetoric.

        “Ho-hum,” indeed.
        \\][//

      2. More from, Señor El Once’s response of May 5, 2014 AT 3:19 PM:

        “So Mr. Rogue dissembles here in order to distract from the fact that he weaseled out of it.
        Wherein he quotes me:

        — ‘I informed the entity of this and offered to send the book back to him in pristine condition. As I have detailed previously, I offered to send the Book back to him. His refusal to take it relieved me of any and all obligations that might have been standing.’ —

        Ho-hum, such blatant cheating and weaseling.
        After the objective review [which never happened], the requirement was to pay-it-forward or pass-it-along.”~Señor
        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
        The “requirement”? What requirement? There were no more requirements nor obligations once I realized this whole BOOK deal was nonsense. Any and all “requirements and obligations” ended on the entity’s refusal to have THE BOOK sent back to him.
        The entity cheated itself by making false claims as to the need to read THE BOOK to grasp Wood’s theories. He should have known better than to expect me to send this bunk ‘forward’ to anybody, especially when I had offered it back to him.

        The entity tried to burn me by high pressure salesmanship into acquiring something I had no interest in. The entity ended up burning itself in the bargain – and will obviously never get over it.

        \\][//

  40. I agree with you Mr Anderson, it is almost a certainty that Coren will to a hit piece on Mr McKee. It will rely on spurious Newspeak nonsense, without doubt.

    \\][//

      1. That would make a perfect circus act for sure. Two clowns hooting ululations in unison like gibbons.
        \\][//

  41. “The establishment of a central bank is 90% of communizing a nation.” ~Lenin (Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov)

    \\][//

  42. “The appalling thing … is not the tumult but the design”
    –Lord Acton (Essays on the French Revolution).

    \\][//

  43. The above quote of Lord Acton is in the introduction to Douglas Reed’s book, THE GRAND DESIGN OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY.

    Available as a free PDF on the Internet. This can be seen as a companion or addendum to his other book, THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION.

    Both are essential reading for the students of real history.

    \\][//

  44. ‘The Judy Wood enigma: a discussion of the most controversial figure in 9/11 research’ is the top thread on T&S yet again today.

    As the comments are closed, I wonder what new readers make of it? I think it is clear that the supporters of Judy Wood showed themselves to be naught but raving cultists. Not a one of them had any idea of what they were talking about; all they had was devotion to THE BOOK.

    All the rational argument came from her critics. And it is there plain as day for the candid world to see. However little is left of the candid in this world..?

    \\][//

  45. “Mr. Rogue owes me nothing at all in anyway whatsoever [except that I say he has overstayed his welcome at T&S.]”~the entity posing as Señor

    Such an opinion is the entities right to hold. However, if my “welcome at T&S” is to be decided, it will be Mr McKee’s decision solely.

    The entity has expressed such an opinion here before, even making empty threats that I was close to banishment sometime back.

    And while on this subject of banishment, etc., the entity tries to make hay out of the affair at COTO, suggesting that I was banned. This is not at all the case. I left in disgust of my own accord. This is all spoken to on my HR1 blog in great detail in a post: ‘Variation on Milgram’. I do not leave URLs to my pieces on T&S because Mr McKee seems to frown on it. But a browser search can surely locate the thread for anyone interested.

    And while on the subject of anyone being interested. I would posit that there is hardly a soul on T&S that gives a flying bat-fuck about this feud between the anonymous entity and myself. This is likely just so much verbal chowder to the readers here. I myself am only concerned because the entity is so intent on defaming my good character and reputation.

    As the entity cannot make a clear and unambiguous proof of a single lie, that doesn’t have to be “interpreted” as such by his spinning rhetoric… I think this should stand as my last entry on this dish of flambe. However, if the need arises I claim my option of speaking freely again should I be provoked.
    \\][//

  46. Mr. McKee does not “frown on” links, but the spam detection algorithm does. Comments can have at least one link without interference. At some number of links greater than one (I’m not sure of the exact number), the comment goes into the moderation queue and requires Mr. McKee to approve it.

    +++

    Mr. Rogue boasts:

    As I have not purposefully told any lies on the blogs, the entity is going to have an impossible time proving one.

    Not impossible; already done; link provided to more than one.

    Mr. Rogue is in such a hurry to “to construct some rhetorical framing” to dig himself out of his litany of (tiny) lies that he dumps “another grand stand of verbosity, some churning logorrhea of foaming fulmination” in less than an hour, finds that he was too hasty, so dumps a second one 49 minutes later and then a third one 29 minutes after that, in addition to the “dickspittle” that he undoubted added to his blog.

    The lie that Mr. Rogue promoted was him (or other sources) having completely and entirely debunked Dr. Wood’s work, whether it is framed as her book or her website. The onus is on Mr. Rogue to provide links to where he (or they) did this thorough debunking. {Mr. Rogue made his boasts of his personal efforts under a now-deleted “Prologue” article; Mr. Rogue made boasts of others’ debunking efforts in places still alive and alluded to already.}

    To my recollection, Mr. Rogue has only offered up the efforts of Dr. Greg Jenkins, who indeed has made some valid criticisms of Dr. Wood’s work but who also has not debunked A-to-Z evidence collected on Dr. Wood’s website, let alone re-purposed into other theories that don’t have gaps.

    Mr. Rogue dissembles by hyping that no book review is required if the book matches the website and if the website has been completely invalidated. Mr. Rogue cheats by trying to frame the situation as if the book, “being an improved subset of the website”, were a scam simply to receive and objectively review.

    The true situation is that nobody (of note in the 9/11 Truth Movement) has offered a chapter-by-chapter review for the good, bad, and ugly in Dr. Wood’s book. I was urging Mr. Rogue [and David Chandler, Let’s Roll Forums, September Clues Forums, John Wright of 9/11 Blogger…] to change that and to take it out of contention legitimately [with my help], which would have brought great stature and honor within the 9/11 Truth Movement. My gain? Acknowledgment of the remaining good nuggets of truth that would be re-purposed into nuclear hypotheses.

    Mr. Rogue failed — gloriously — probably because Mr. Rogue always relied too heavily on the works of others (many with PhD’s), adopted their quoted opinions wholesale, and could not be prodded into looking for nuggets of truth in places that those opinions labeled “disinformation.” [Dr. Wood and September Clues fit into this category.]

    All-or-nothing is the disinformation game, which sweeps from the table nuggets of truth at the first signs of possible deceit by design in order to disappear such nuggets from further consideration that could be inconvenient to larger agendas. Mr. Rogue was so eager to operated the broom on all of Dr. Wood’s collected evidence that he acted the hypocrite in not applying the same “all-or-nothing” to his various PhD sources which, if not rejected completely, should have been questioned with regards to assumptions, references, scope, and methodology to find their true limits of applicability.

    Owing to Mr. Rogue’s tendencies to rely heavily on the works of others, to his inabilities in recognizing deficiencies in those works, to his stubbornness in acknowledging — when not validating — such gaps and errors once brought to his attention, and to his own sociopath ego that can’t admit being wrong, Mr. Rogue frames his own credibility.

    Dr. Wood’s book served its purpose as an objectivity test that Mr. Rogue failed spectacularly. All continuing indications are that it remains a good predictor of Mr. Rogue’s open-mindedness elsewhere. Indeed it already has with respect to Jeff Prager’s work and references already submitted into fourth generation nuclear devices.

    //

  47. I hereby reiterate and reaffirm that I have not purposefully told any lies on the blogs, and the entity still hasn’t proven a single one.

    Señor boasts:
    — “Not impossible; already done; link provided to more than one.”
    And then continues with:
    — “The lie that Mr. Rogue promoted was him (or other sources) having completely and entirely debunked Dr. Wood’s work, whether it is framed as her book or her website.”

    And here is the crux of the matter, the entity calling itself Señor is making a subjective case as to what a “lie” is. He defines a “lie” as that which he disagrees with. Whether Dr. Wood’s work is “debunked” entirely, in great part, for the most part, or not at all is OPINION.

    The entity obviously puts a great deal of faith in his own OPINION, in fact to the point of hubris, that vanity that blinds the senses and causes delusion.

    It is so obvious on inspection that the entity is just a context-shifting word twisting-shill.

    Example, the entity already did its Beancounter slink, numbering my comments of yesterday’s compared to his/her/its; but what is missing there? CONTEXT, the entity spewed how many thousands of words on the page yesterday? I am loath to even attempt a count, but one certain thing is that they overwhelm my word-count by a vast margin.

    And his every point is veiled in the same stinking cheesecloth. Just rhetorical spin jive bullshit. ARGUMENTUM VERBOSIUM to the max.

    Wood’s BOOK v Wood’s website according to the Señor entity:

    — “The website was never completed. It even has notes from 2006 saying various pages are still under construction. Many errors from the website were fixed in the book, which is one reason why the book should be considered the final source. The book provides as near to the most definitive statements on various concepts as we can get from Dr. Wood (until addressed in version 2 of the book or something on her website.) This being said, definitive statements are few and far between, as are definitive connecting of concepts. But if you want to peg Dr. Judy Wood for saying or supporting anything as of today, the book is your nearest source. Go review my June 4 2012 at 1:55 pm posting. The correlation of pictures to map positions in her book is vastly superior to her initial attempts on the web, and worth the price alone.”~Señor

    Parse this closely and what is really found in this spin?

    – “Many errors from the website were fixed in the book,” Well, which errors?

    Well deconstruct this:

    – “The book provides as near to the most definitive statements on various concepts as we can get from Dr. Wood …[BUT]… This being said, definitive statements are few and far between, as are definitive connecting of concepts.”

    That’s it; the most definitive statements are few and far between … WTF?

    The entity doesn’t say what is in the book that was left off the website that was “under construction”. He makes no mention of what is new of substance. The only thing Once can come up with here is, – “The correlation of pictures to map positions in her book is vastly superior to her initial attempts on the web, and worth the price alone.”.

    Is it? Part of what the entity refers to here is a plastic card, pretty durable, that has the layout of WTC as an areal view, with all the buildings numbered and the names of the streets. Is this “worth the price alone”? Preposterous. The card is handy no doubt, but the rest is more hyperbole. And I reiterate again; the entity cannot think of WHAT it is of substance that is revealed in the book, but missing from the website – he merely asserts that there is, and then offers these expansive remarks about a card with the Legend to the buildings seen from above.

    Can I say, ‘Whoopty-fuckin-doo’?
    Or should that read, ‘Whoopty-fuckin-DEW’? Lol

    \\][//

  48. Look, this is not a debate on the merits of Wood’s book nor her theories as they appear on her web site. This is not a debate on the merits of Nukes, nor DEW. This is a debate over whether the entity posing as Señor el Once has any substantiation to prove me a liar. He hasn’t done so, and cannot possibly do so, for I haven’t made any lies here, or on any other blog.

    If the entity wishes to go on spewing it’s diddly squat ruminations on it’s favorite rocking-horse, I don’t give a damn. Just leave me the fuck out of it.

    \\][//

  49. So how is it that Once again a thread on T&S has been hijacked by the entity posing as “Señor el Once”? Well, the sequence is documented on this very thread by Date/Time-Stamps.

    The proximate cause arising from the entity leaping into the field with spurious allegations directed at me in defense of an obvious White Supremacist. From that point on the mass of verbosity builds to terrible proportions, until the finale with the brisance of a fuel-air burst. Again, a toe in the door and the Nookiedoodoo Salesman gains entry and sets up it’s dreadful kiosk of slur and whine.

    Too much too often too hard too bad. Enough of this bullshit!

    \\][//

  50. A sociopath may show a number of traits that make them unpleasant to be around: such as pathological lying, a lack of empathy, overwhelming selfishness, disorganized, abrupt in speech, easily annoyed, quick to show temper, a disregard for laws and social mores, and a failure to feel remorse or guilt. They act more impulsively and lash out at those with whom they are angry. They tend to be uneducated and live on the fringes of society.

    Woes unto me for falling into Mr. Rogue’s sociopathic game playing. Mr. Rogue writes:

    I hereby reiterate and reaffirm that I have not purposefully told any lies on the blogs, and the entity still hasn’t proven a single one.

    My “Señor El Once” alias is probably sufficient for most readers to determine my gender, and no amount of even half-assed cyber-stalking will cough up evidence that contradicts it. Beancounter that I am accused of being, Mr. Rogue in this thread alone has purposely told at least ~five~ (5) lies with regards to my gender by calling me “Señora”. The lies of this nature increase exponentially on his blog when all misogynistic references to female body parts for me are taken into consideration.

    Now Mr. Rogue weasels some more with regards to a subjective definition of what constitutes a lie.

    No, a lie remains untruthful and dishonest even if its usage is for other purposes such as to insult, to cheat, to create false impressions, etc.

    Mr. Rogue has been caught in many lies of substance in our debates since January 2012, yet Mr. Rogue play-acts the innocent: “Who? Moi? Guilty of uttering things that were known to be untrue? Oh how quaint!”

    I can readily reference a small subset of such lies for the curious (other than “Señora”), but the one lie that I happened to choose to promote to address Mr. Rogue’s boastful & repeated claims of “me not proving a single one” had to do with his claims of debunking Dr. Wood’s work (website). At the time on “Prologue”, he clearly bragged of a comprehensive published effort authored personally by him. Given that article’s self-destruction, I’m willing to count published efforts from Mr. Rogue that used extensive quotations from others or even published efforts from Mr. Rogue that just linked to other authors’ articles that in total address all nooks-and-cranies of Dr. Wood’s evidence collection.

    Never happened. [And to my knowledge, doesn’t exist whether or not authored by Mr. Rogue, otherwise he (or I or others) would have found it and referenced it already.]

    This lie is a central part of Mr. Rogue’s weasel to avoid reviewing Dr. Wood’s book (or work) in a more scholarly, objective, rational, thorough, reasonable, prudent, honest manner.

    Mr. Rogue has spent literally years in this forum regularly hypnotically suggesting that Dr. Wood’s “looney, crazy, woo-woo” work have no nuggets of truth. “Don’t look here, sheople! Move along now!”

    What makes Mr. Rogue’s actions even more dubious is that Dr. Wood’s work isn’t the end-station or end-all-cure-all. A mere test of objectivity, it twas.

    He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much.~Luke 16:10 New American Standard Bible

    My gender? A very little thing [el-oh-el]. An objective review of Dr. Wood’s book? Also a very little thing; one sentence each on the good, bad, and ugly per chapter would have gone a long way. Statements of intent? More little things.

    All and more flumuxed by Mr. Rogue.

    Yet he expects the “much” of his integrity, reputation, and character to remain prestine despite his being unrighteous in the very little things? It don’t work that way.

    When my nuclear hobby-horse gets to the races, Mr. Rogue’s participation will have “liar, cheater, and weasel” painted on the side so readers will know to vet his hypnotic assertions, and I will know how seriously to take his comments.

    P.S. Before I could complete this, Mr. Rogue spams the forum with two more entries, one of which stated:

    This is a debate over whether the entity posing as Señor el Once has any substantiation to prove me a liar. He hasn’t done so, and cannot possibly do so, for I haven’t made any lies here, or on any other blog.

    Serves as a great example of — drum roll please — “pathological lying.” I provided substantiation before, and I provided it again with different examples, even. “Failure to feel remorse or guilt”, anyone?

    I don’t give a damn. Just leave me the fuck out of it… Enough of this bullshit!

    Mr. Rogue just needs to pony-up the moxie to stay “the fuck out of it.” Throw-in the towel now, Mr. Rogue. Whereas I used to thank Mr. Rogue for his stilted opposition that helped me hone and improve my arguments, his lies, cheats, and weasels made me lose my respect for him.

    //

    1. And I could care less if a stalking maniac has lost “respect” for me.

      Spew on anonymous entity, the repetition of bullshit remains bullshit nevertheless.

      \\][//

      1. A sociopath may show a number of traits that make them unpleasant to be around: such as pathological lying, a lack of empathy, overwhelming selfishness, disorganized, abrupt in speech, easily annoyed, quick to show temper, a disregard for laws and social mores, and a failure to feel remorse or guilt. They act more impulsively and lash out at those with whom they are angry. They tend to be uneducated and live on the fringes of society.

        1. Señor just can’t stop the blabber …

          I am quite sure most of us on the blog knows the profile of a sociopath. I know that I have studied the psychology and pathology of and the distinctions between a “sociopath” and a “psychopath”.

          But it is the implied ‘relevance’ to the context of this thread that is the ever expected slur from this anonymous entity. One may wonder if this entity was identifiable as ‘the person’ behind it’s camouflage of anonymity, if it would be so bold and blatant in it’s defamation campaign.

          When is enough enough? Only this phantom knows…

          \\][//

          1. Señor just can’t stop the blabber …

            Ooo! Another lie from Mr. Rogue used as a projection to boot, for it is he — not I — who cannot stop the blabber and absolutely has to have the last word.

            Because numbers are so helpful in seeing patterns, Mr. Rogue’s 97 comments (so far) comprises 42.5% of the total (so far 228). Damn if my 12 comments including this one aren’t a mere 5.2% of the total.

            Or looked at more objectively, 23 of Mr. Rogue’s 97 comments were aimed at me, which is almost two (2) times my total output. How special that makes me feel! That special feeling only grows when considering since last Friday the >40 comments on his disorganized blog entry dedicated to me! 23+40 is over five (5) times my piddly output. Oh woe’s me!

            Just as telling, 17 of Mr. Rogue’s comments were Mr. Rogue poorly quoting from other sources. To boost the perceptions of his intelligence, to ping for life-signs, and to give him the last word in the discussion.

            “Obsessing,” anyone?

            If Mr. Rogue would have let my comment from April 28, 2014 at 6:29 pm simply be, even though it made a challenge for him to avoid hypocrisy, 15% of the total comments would not be, either.

            Just watch how this comment will generate several from Mr. Rogue. He’ll want to break 100 and get the last word!

            //

            1. Word count – not comment counts. The entity again brings in the irrelevant issue of my blog. I attempt to spare T&S the output I am capable of.
              If the entity wishes the field to itself here, it will have to end this spurious bullshit defamation of my person.
              And using the spin of the number of comments made, while hiding the number of words used, is another example of the entity’s sneaky, cheating techniques.

              The entity provokes and is flummoxed that I defend.

              Sashadick rides again on his mighty steed with rockers.

              \\][//

              1. Mr. Rogue is fully capable of doing the word count. Instead of doing the work, though, he drops the cheating innuendo that the word count comes out in his favor. That’s a pattern that he repeats, like in his cheating book/website review efforts. “Oh, I’ve already done that. We’ve already discussed that. I’ve already debunked that…” All hat and no cattle.

                //

        2. So Seenyor,

          Is that last name pronounced ‘rick’ or ‘reek’?

          Let’s have a peek…
          \\][//

        3. WTF? Mr. Rogue seems to be addressing me:

          So Seenyor, Is that last name pronounced ‘rick’ or ‘reek’? Let’s have a peek… \\][//

          Silence is Golden. Let it remain so… \\][//

          [Comment will resume shortly once Mr. Rogue’s deplorable blog is reviewed…]

          Oh, I get it.

          Mr. Rogue feels that he hasn’t demonstrated enough of the warning signs of a sociopath: easily annoyed, abrupt in speech, quick to show temper, overwhelming selfishness (see his posting count), disorganization (see his blog), and pathological lying (when he gets cornered and what I take issue with the most).

          Now he’s aiming for: “a disregard for laws and social mores, a failure to feel remorse or guilt, and a lack of empathy. [Sociopaths] act more impulsively and lash out at those with whom they are angry.”

          What “social mores” are we talking about?

          Violating the Privacy of Others is Improper Netiquette
          Avoid sharing personal information about other people without their permission and knowledge. This includes sharing personal details, full names, addresses, phone numbers, and images. No one wants to find out that their privacy has been violated.

          Mr. Rogue is trying to publicly out me.

          … I think bloggers who out pseudonymous bloggers are, as a general matter, doing us all a grave disservice, by making it harder for people who have interesting things to say but who cannot say them under their own name (for professional or personal reasons) to get their ideas into public conversation. Bottom line: if you are going to out an anonymous blogger, you’d better have a very, very good reason for doing so, because the damage you can do to that person’s career, and to the online public square, can be real and irreversible.
          ~Rod Dreber
          On outing anonymous bloggers

          I’ll add another caveat to the words of Mr. Dreber.

          If you are going to out an anonymous blogger, you’d better have the right person, because the damage you can do to the wrong person’s career can be real and irreversible.

          Actually, I’m not so anonymous. Mr. McKee, Dr. Fetzer, and JerseyG know my identity. That Mr. Rogue doesn’t know my identify can be attributed to two things. [1] He has never asked me nicely for it; he never really had a need to know; and through our interaction these past two years plus, he proves that he can’t be trusted with it. [2] Mr. Rogue isn’t nearly as intelligent and savvy as he pretends to be, and this false deduction stands as a glaring example.

          My identity can be found embarrassingly quickly, as was demonstrated a couple of months ago on FB by some definite agents at “9/11 Debates” who promote the official story, anomalies and all.

          My firewall is weak and was purposely never shored up when first exploited several years ago by an unethical and immoral spook. Why? [1] Because I do stand behind my words. [2] It is one thing to cyber-stalk me and learn about me. It is quite another to publicly publish my identity against my wishes. That takes a purposely callous, unethical, and immoral person, particularly when they’ll probably reveal it in the middle of a bunch of ad hominem and defamation [as would be the case, say, on Mr. Rogue’s blog] that will be vacuumed up and served up for YEARS in Google-style background checks the next time I (or my wife) search for employment to support our family.

          At this point, I know that Mr. Rogue is twitching: “You effing hypocrite, as if calling me a liar, cheat, and weasel isn’t the same thing what with my real name exposed!” I maintain that it isn’t, because Mr. Rogue substantiated such assessments via his actions. Mr. Rogue could have apologized, corrected the record, and modified his behavior. (He didn’t, and then after running down the clock would repeat the same flagged statements.) Plus, I didn’t out Mr. Rogue (or his mother), or any of their contact information. [Cyber-stalking Mr. Rogue for-free doesn’t reveal much — if his name is believed –, except that his long history of 9/11 activism on the internet ain’t nearly as long as he boasts.] More importantly, being in retirement, Mr. Rogue isn’t looking for work where his online activities would be a concern. And Mr. Rogue says he doesn’t give a fuck what other people think of him anyway.

          Be that as it may:

          Writing under a pseudonym or pen name on political topics has a long and distinguished history going back to the Federalist Papers when Founders Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote under the pen name of Publius in the late 1700s.

          I believe that from a speech standpoint a pseudonym provides accountability. A person writes under her pen name and if called on misuse of facts or making stuff up can’t hide behind the “I didn’t say that” that anonymous blog commenters can. So I don’t think using a pen name is itself bad for public discourse. …

          Outing people is a form of Ad hominem attack to me. You don’t care about their facts or sources, you are arguing the writing shouldn’t be trusted because of the person hiding behind the pseudonyms.
          ~alaskanlibrarian
          Pseudonyms and Anonymous Sourcing

          Here’s a story to help misguided Mr. Rogue see the error in his ways. One of the churches I attend prints out each Sunday a program with an inspiring quote on the cover. The poem of a 12 year-old (from 1998) about truth graced that program in 2012 (?) when its author’s mother was the featured Sunday speaker. I felt the poem worthy enough to enter into my home-grown database of quotable quotes that my home-grown web coding randomly serves up to my blog and website.

          The author (F.R.) is neither me, nor my offspring. Don’t take my word for it. Were Mr. Rogue to send that name to Mr. McKee, Mr. McKee has my permission to give it a “yeah” or “nay” just so an innocent isn’t smeared.

          So when Mr. Rogue wrote:

          Silence is Golden. Let it remain so…

          Let this apply to Mr. Rogue in the damage that his selfishness wants to inflict on an unsuspecting innocent, as well as on me.

          Let this apply to Mr. Rogue in any response that he is tempted to make to anything I post on any subject. I have lost my tolerance and patience for Mr. Rogue’s sociopathic ways-and-means that makes him unpleasant to be around. And it really isn’t Mr. Rogue’s job to respond, anyway. He should STFU.

          This is checkmate for both Mr. Rogue personally, and his preposterous fantasies to having debunked 9/11 having nuclear components.

          And so it goes…

          //

          1. I suppose the term “plausible deniability” could very well apply here.

            The story is indeed ‘plausible’ — and yet the profile is so extraordinarily similar, that I have deep doubts as to it’s truth.

            As far as how “public” the outing – that is rather slim as to the size of the readership that attends my blog, that is aside from the fact that Seenyor so constantly promotes attendance to it by comments such as the one above.

            Seenyor has the option to simply deny up front that he is the person I suspect he is. And that person remains anonymous on this blog at this time.
            So let’s not be coy Mr Once. A flat out denial would serve the so framed “innocent party” well at this time.

            Your move honcho.
            \\][//

          2. “WTF? Mr. Rogue seems to be addressing me”~Señor

            Seenyor is simply a phonetic spelling of Señor. So what does he mean, “seems to be”? It is certainly much more obvious than the issue we both dance around at this time.

            I prefer to dispense with constantly needing to seek out the “ñ” in the name in order to address things the still yet anonymous entity.

            No I am not looking for a job. I don’t gather that the entity is looking for one either. My concern is still that I am being slurred and defamed by someone who is hiding in the shadows as an unknown entity, while my name is public knowledge here and on every blog I attend to with any regularity.

            Whatever insults this entity has to suffer do not touch his real person at all.
            This makes a very uneven playing field here – and I have to doubt that the entity would be so bold with his spurious allegations were he the public person that I am. This is a simple concept that should be readily obvious to anyone attending this back and forth.

            I really have no interest in who this person is. My interest rests entirely on the retention of my good name. The entity seems to pretend such concern for someone he has only heard about from some inspirational speaker. Yet he does so with such a passion as to belie this tale.

            Now he frames this as some sort of continuity, as if he has proven in anyway that I am a “liar, a cheat, and a weasel” – and he HAS NOT. He can not, because he is the one who lied about the nonexistent difference between the substance of the Wood website and the BOOK. And this has been gone over in such detail here and elsewhere that is is utterly astonishing the entity still tries to play this same scurrilous canard.

            So now, the anonymous entity is a liar. But the real person behind the mask is untouched by this fact – THAT is what bothers me.

            \\][//

  51. Although Carroll Quigley’s book is one of the most important in our time, I have one complaint of it:

    TRAGEDY & HOPE should have been titled; CRIME & IMPUNITY

    It seems that Quigley was at the core of himself a quite naive and Utopian daydreamer, that did not grasp that means define the ends, rather than the ends justifying the means. I would blame the conditioning of Academia for this gross and jejune error on the professor’s part.

    \\][//

  52. I just thought I would write something that might be read by more than just two people on this thread.

  53. It remains my conviction that any who attempt to analyse our current situation, who are ignorant of the true architecture of modern political power, are simply doomed to failure.

    \\][//

  54. “Emotions like fear, anger, sadness, and joy enable people to adjust to their environment and react flexibly to stress and strain and are vital for cognitive processes, physiological reactions, and social behaviour. The processing of emotions is closely linked to structures in the brain, i.e. to what is known as the limbic system. Within this system the amygdala plays a central role — above all it processes negative emotions like anxiety and fear. If the activity of the amygdala becomes unbalanced, depression and anxiety disorders may develop.”

    Psychopaths generally have been found to have physical damage or birth defects in the amygdala, or other linkages of the limbic system. This is why their cognitive functions are askew, and their emotions shut down. This is why they have to learn to mimic the facial expressions and postures of normal human beings to get along socially. Many become exceptionally convincing actors, and can exude extreme charm synthetically. Of course they can become hostile and very dangerous when cornered, having no empathy for their focus of calculated revenge.

    \\][//

  55. Very cool and exciting news Mr Syed!! Thanks for the heads-up.

    ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
    The Twin Towers’ destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

    -Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
    -Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
    -Extremely rapid onset of destruction
    -Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
    -Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
    -Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
    -Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
    -1200-foot-diameter debris field: no “pancaked” floors found
    -Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
    -Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
    -Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
    -Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
    -Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
    -The three high-rises exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

    The three high-rises exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

    -Slow onset with large visible deformations
    -Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
    -Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
    -High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapse

    AE911Truth

    1. It looks like someone, somewhere, somehow is trying to sabotage this event and make it not happen. We’ll have to sit back over the rest of the day and see how this plays out.

      http://www.laweekly.com/westcoastsound/2014/05/09/why-was-this-ucla-festival-abruptly-canceled

      By Sarah Purkrabek

      Earlier this week, an activist festival at UCLA set for Saturday and featuring Public Enemy, members of Wu-Tang Clan, and speakers including Dennis Kucinich, was suddenly canceled. Called United We Stand, it was to be held at UCLA’s Pauley Pavilion.

      Thousands of tickets had already been sold when the university abruptly pulled the plug, claiming that the organizers – called Free & Equal Elections Foundation – had missed a payment deadline for the venue. Organizers are looking to reschedule, and both sides blame the other.

      In a statement to the Daily Bruin, UCLA Media Relations wrote that after the payment was not received by Monday, per their agreement, Free & Equal said the money would arrive by Tuesday at noon. When it was not received by that time, the statement continued, the festival was canceled. (Shortly thereafter, a different affair was relocated to Pauley in its place – an event for transfer students.)

      Christina Tobin, the founder of Free & Equal, disputes this chronology of events. She says that the agreed-upon deadline for the $90,000 payment was actually 2 pm on Tuesday, and that the school received the money by 12:30 – an hour and a half early.

      She says that shortly thereafter she received an email from UCLA’s Associate Director of Facility and Event Operations Rich Mylin, who announced that the administration had decided to cancel the festival, which aims to educate young voters through music and discussion of issues including foreign policy, election reform, and Internet freedom.

      The group and the school quickly set to work relocating the event; Tobin says it has been moved outdoors to UCLA’s Sunset Canyon Recreation Center, though neither UCLA Media Relations nor Mylin could confirm this.

      Wherever it ends up, it is still scheduled for tomorrow, May 10, from 4-10 pm, though it will now be free. Some of those who previously purchased tickets may have some trouble getting their money back, but are promised “priority entrance and seating.”

      1. This is an event where THOUSANDS have purchased tickets. And Richard Gage is a scheduled speaker. This is an audience the size of the Nation of Islam event in 2012, but without such “controversy.” Gage usually speaks to an audience of roughly 50-200, and almost all of them are devoted activist fans. And for Gage to be in the same event as all these others is a big deal indeed. He could really spread the ripple effect hard with this appearance. Look at the list of speakers and artists.

        https://unitedwestandfest.com/confirmed-guests/

        1. I cannot but suspect foul play in this incident – 90 thousand dollars for UCLA for one evening??? Absurd in itself. But someone pulled the plug on this for political reasons. I don’t think this is a tragedy, I think it’s a crime of intrigue and skulduggery …. Conspiracy by gawd!

          \\][//

        2. I’ve been thinking about the similarities between 9/11 and the Rykstag fire in Nazi Germany lately … very similar indeed. Like father like son.

          \\][//

        3. Mr Syed,

          Do you know what finally happened yesterday? Did the event take place anywhere? Was it a success by any standard? Any info you have, I would love for you to share here.

          Thanks, \\][//

          1. All I have to go on is a couple of tweets from Luke Rudkowski. Apparently it did happen, at the alternate venue, lots of people were there. Abby Martin was there, don’t know anything yet about Richard, or whether he was simply there or if he spoke. Certainly it looks more like a rock concert than a conference, that’s for sure.

            1. Thanks Adam,

              I suppose info about whatever happened will filter out through the various grapevines.
              UCLA chomps choda.
              \\][//

                1. Thanks again Adam,

                  I don’t know much about Abby Martin except “she looks like a model and acts like a punk” … Lol [that is a remark by Journalist Nik Afanasjew]

                  I just discovered she is an artist; painter, collage and photography. I very talented gal, she is. Smart too. I didn’t really learn much from the video clip as to what really went on, and whether Gage got to present to a settled audience or not. I imagine more will be forthcoming…

                  \\][//

                  1. Here is what one FB’er said who apparently was there, on the “Did Gage Speak?” question.

                    He was on stage twice, I think, with 2 different panels. I know he answered a question on one of the panels, but I don’t recall if he spoke on the second panel.

  56. Now, let Señor el Once pause for a moment and ask himself why and how this conversation began on this thread in the first place.

    The entity had nothing much more to say here besides his usual token nod to Mr McKee for a job well done. Other than this he wasn’t involved in any of the discussions any further. That is until he found the slightest excuse to go on the attack again, by defending the once resident Nazi here, Mr Dean.

    This is how it always goes, thread by thread here; a toe in the door and a blast of defamation attended by his rocking horse topic. Every single goddamned thread.

    The entity has made very clear his intent to “discredit Mr Rogue in the eyes of the readership” And “When my hobby-horse comes prancing into view, I want Mr. Rogue locked in the smelly barn of his blog biting his tongue.”

    It is obvious by the very words spewed onto this thread and many previous ones that the entity has one major goal here, to discredit me, to slur and defame. His rocking-horse business even takes a back seat to this agenda. And it is equally as obvious that all of this revolves around his initial lying PR regarding the Wood BOOK, and his revisionist version of the actual history of how I came to finally accept a copy of said book, and my subsequent discovery that there was no substantial difference between the information in the printed work than what had been on the Wood website.

    At some point this anonymous entity’s hysteria over this affair has got to peak and flame out in some spontaneous combustion, because the readership of this blog is going to grow as sick of it as I am.
    \\][//

    1. As per my assertions above I refer to my comment above of MAY 6, 2014 AT 11:01 AM:
      Particularly the second section:
      ‘Wood’s BOOK v Wood’s website according to the Señor entity’ – where in the entity’s own words he admits that there is no substantial difference between the website and the book.

      However many times this needs to be reiterated and pointed out it will be.
      \\][//

  57. Mr. Rogue wrote:

    Now [SEO] frames this as some sort of continuity, as if he has proven in anyway that I am a “liar, a cheat, and a weasel” – and he HAS NOT.

    Ho-hum. Did, too, liar! And I’ll do it again right from Mr. Rogue’s volley of four (4) responses. In the same posting, Mr. Rogue wrote:

    I really have no interest in who this person [SEO] is.

    I flag the sentence above as being a lie, because it is contradicted by Mr. Rogue’s cyber-stalking and sociopathic desire to “get (more) even.”

    My interest rests entirely on the retention of my good name.

    It is a yet-to-be validated assumption that Mr. Rogue ever had a good name. The more Mr. Rogue comes unhinged on his blog with misogynistic rants, the less likely it ever was since even before his last divorce.

    Were Mr. Rogue concerned about the retention of his good name, he wouldn’t be so gung-ho to fall in the trap of smearing anyone else, let alone an innocent, uninvolved party.

    Thus, I flag Mr. Rogue’s sentence above as a lie, too.

    My concern is still that I am being slurred and defamed by someone who is hiding in the shadows as an unknown entity, while my name is public knowledge here and on every blog I attend to with any regularity.

    Mr. Rogue’s concern is unfounded as he frames it, because it isn’t defamation when it’s true. My anonymity has nothing to do with the substantiated instances of Mr. Rogue being a liar, a cheat, and a weasel. It is a bit of cheat to frame it in this manner.

    Plus, Mr. Rogue’s cavalier attitude toward mixing his pen-name with his real-name doesn’t have to equate to others. If Mr. Rogue were truly concerned about the reputation of his name brand, he would have been more attentive to not demonstrating repeatedly the very actions of which he is accused.

    Mr. Rogue writes:

    [SEO] can not [prove that I am a “liar, a cheat, and a weasel”], because he is the one who lied about the nonexistent difference between the substance of the Wood website and the BOOK.

    What sort of a weaseling, cheating straw-man is this? El-oh-el.

    The agreement on which Mr. Rogue weaseled was a good-bad-ugly review of Dr. Wood’s book. It doesn’t matter whether the book came before or after the movie; it doesn’t matter whether the book came before or after the website; it doesn’t matter whether the book was a complete subset of the website or completely unique from the website. A book review is a book review.

    An ironic point is that Mr. Rogue made claims (a) that others have analyzed and debunked Dr. Wood’s website in total and (b) that Mr. Rogue himself had done so personally himself. Gee, if I supposedly “lied about the nonexistent difference between the substance of the Wood website and the BOOK,” then Mr. Rogue could have nipped this in the bud two years ago by copy-and-pasting from (a) and/or (b) into his highly anticipated book review and been done.

    Except for the glitch that (a) and (b) were both lies. Except for the glitch that this “nonexistent difference” strawman argument is a relatively new weasel move.

    Here’s where the ghost of Mr. Rogue’s physicially destroyed copy of Dr. Wood’s textbook gives its destroyer, Mr. Rogue, a gushing nose-bleed (figuratively) as well as the path to Mr. Rogue’s redemption.

    If we give unmerited leeway to Mr. Rogue’s lying assertion of “non-existent difference between the substance of the Wood website and the BOOK,” then an objective, web-page by web-page, good-bad-ugly review of Dr. Wood’s website would erase the claim of Mr. Rogue continuing to be a weasel on the objective review of Dr. Wood’s work.

    As with before, Mr. Rogue is under no obligation to find “bad” or “ugly” on any webpage, but owing to copious amounts of truth being a requirement for all disinformation vehicles, Mr. Rogue is under obligation to find “good” which means acknowledging and rescuing nuggets of truth.

    Moreover, Dr. Wood’s work was never held up as the 9/11 end-all-cure-all. It has consistently been promoted as an objectivity test to get acknowledgment of anomalous 9/11 evidence and outcomes that need to be explained properly.

    If Mr. Rogue wants redemption for his tattered reputation, he is expected to approach Dr. Wood’s website from the perspective of the very real possibility of late-3rd-generation or early-adopter-4th-generation nuclear weapons [PDF] and their applicability to 9/11, whereby Dr. Wood has collected a nice set of evidence.

    Whatever insults this entity has to suffer do not touch his real person at all. This makes a very uneven playing field here…

    Oh, I get it. Rather than rectifying the specific bad behavior that legitimately and truthfully labels Mr. Rogue “a liar, a cheat, and a weasel”, immoral Mr. Rogue would rather pursue his reckless path of outing the person behind a pen-name so that he can “even up the playing field”.

    Mr. Rogue doesn’t have a job to lose and will never be looking for a job ever again. [Not married with a working spouse. No kids.] He doesn’t give a fuck what people think about him.

    Mr. Rogue under-estimates the power of Google to index his defamation filled blog to give via Google-style back-ground checks “ever-lasting punishment” to those he outs unethically and smears. A lot can happen on my employment front in the years between now and the earliest I can start withdrawaling from an IRA without penalty.

    Mr. Rogue made a challenge at 10:51 pm:

    Seenyor has the option to simply deny up front that he is the person I suspect he is. … So let’s not be coy Mr Once. A flat out denial would serve the so framed ‘innocent party” well at this time.

    That option was taken way up front and over five hours prior to this. Mr. Rogue isn’t being coy. He’s being stupid.

    And if phonetic Mr. Rogue is too technology-challenged to copy-and-paste “Señor El Once”, he could type “Sr. El Once” or “Mr. El Once” and avoid the dreaded “ñ” altogether.

    //

  58. “If Mr. Rogue wants redemption for his tattered reputation..”~Señor

    Among verbose explosion of the new epic twaddle from the anonymous entity posing as Señor El Once is found this preposterous assertion. As my reputation is “tattered” only within the delusional confines of this entity’s fevered imagination, I can only say that his continued harangue centered on the BOOK is a matter long extinguished by the facts.

    If Seenyor is unacceptable for this crazed lunatic, then ‘crazed lunatic’ will be a perfectly acceptable stand-in for me.

    I should think this bullshit has gone far enough on this thread. The crazed lunatic can hold any deluded and scrambled brained opinions he wishes, and rock himself to sleep on his little rocking horse, the mighty steed, El Nookiedoodoo

    \\][//

  59. –“Mr. Rogue under-estimates the power of Google to index his defamation filled blog to give via Google-style back-ground checks “ever-lasting punishment” to those he outs unethically and smears. A lot can happen on my employment front in the years between now and the earliest I can start withdrawaling from an IRA without penalty.”~The Crazed Lunatic

    Aww, the thought of it just breaks my heart…

    However as this penalty the lunatic posits would only be viable if he were indeed the poor ‘outed’ individual he claims not to be — or so it would SEEM, sans an actual up front denial – which I note still does not accompany his epic rant above.

    So..which is it you raving lunatic?

    \\][//

  60. Seenyor Once lied when he claimed there was a substantial difference between Judy Wood’s website and the BOOK. This becomes a ‘Damned Lie’ in that he continues to promote this falsehood despite clear prima facea evidence to the contrary.

    This is compounded by the fact that he uses this lie to make further lies concerning my honesty and character; slurs and defamation by false witness and perjury.

    Each and everyone of these false assertions are “Counts” – ones that Seenyor, being the beancounter that he is; should tally one day to illustrate what a lying cheating scoundrel he truly is.
    \\][//

Comments are closed.