It Ain’t

It Ain’t

It ain’t the Bilderbergers

It’s the Jews

It ain’t the Illuminati

It’s the Jews

It ain’t the Anglo-American Establishment 

It’s the Jews

It ain’t the banksters

It’s the Jews

It ain’t the Jesuits and Black pope

It’s the Jews

It ain’t the criminal cartel

It’s the Jews

It ain’t the Club of Rome and many other secret societies

It’s the Jews

It ain’t the Bush/Obama Aminsitration

It’s the Jews

It ain’t the German Death Cult, Alex

It’s the Jews

It ain’t the neo-colonialists

It’s the Jews

It ain’t the aliens

It’s the Jews

It ain’t the moon matrix (ha that’s a good one, Icke)

It’s the Jews

It ain’t the Annunaki, Zecharia

It’s the Jews

It ain’t the shape-shifting lizards, Icke

It’s the Jews

It ain’t the Technocrats

It’s the Jews

It ain’t the Nazi death cult, Alex

It’s the Jews

It ain’t the global power elite

It’s the Jews

It ain’t the Neocons

It’s the Jews

It ain’t the Imperialists

It’s the Jews

It ain’t the British Royal family

It’s the Jews

It ain’t the Globalists, Alex

It’s the Jews

It ain’t the Rothschild zionists, Icke

It’s the Jews

It really is the elite supremacist Jews

Another Ditty from my pal across the pond, DiggerForTruth, who graciously allowed me to make the video from his work.

What’s The Real Agenda Regarding Sandy Hook?

I wrote the following to friends in an email and thought I’d also ask readers here what they think about my “gut feeling”:

Whenever I get these nagging “gut feelings” I know that my intuition is about to reveal something of truth. I am having one regarding all of this Sandy Hook stuff (and I hope you can help me sort it out).

There is obviously something very awry with the story. We’ve seen the inconsistencies in Posen’s interviews, in the fake family actors (or whatever is wrong with them), the whacky Medical Examiner, the guns found in the school (then in the car), the armed swat team member from a different town caught in the woods (running away, instead of “catching murderers”). It seems all to blatant. Too choreographed.

But why? Why would the government and media do such as this… be so loose with facts… intentionally causing disinformation? Why would all the disinfo specialists like Alex Jones be screaming about the 2nd Amendment, saying things on National TV about another “Revolution”?

I can think of a couple of reasons that actually go hand-in-hand.

1) I believe that we are about to undergo serious financial problems here in the states, including Austerity measures to an extent that the very poorest people up thru those left in the middle class are about to see what real poverty and hunger is. It appears to me that as we slide into that misery, the PTB need a major diversion.

2) It appears that this intentional mish mash of bullshit about these “murders” is bringing about a show down between those liberty minded “truthers” and those who trust and support the government.

What if?

What if the demonization of Constitution supporters is simply a catalyst of the Divide and Conquer strategy we all know is part of the way to bring full control to our betters (the Jews and their sayanim)? What if they realize that this is the ultimate division and that the scare tactics being employed (and supported by that loud mouth sayanim, Alex Jones and the like) is simply a means to bring about some type of Civil War. Scaring the MSM masses into thinking preppers and liberty minded truthers are to be feared even more than any government issue? Until they INSIST that the government stop us?

People screaming about armed insurrection is a detriment to the cause of liberty and only used as THE last resort. Hence my post about contacting local reps and utilizing one of the last civilized methods to stop it.

What about all the character assassinations of the Founding Fathers and their motive on the likes of the History Channel? What about all the negative stuff on Discovery, et al, regarding Preppers and Conspiracy Theorists? Bil Maher, Al Sharpton, Piers Morgan, and all the other MSM sayanim coming out attacking/belittling anyone who discusses state’s rights, the Sheriffs standing up, and also using maniacs like AJ to push the “crazy” agenda?

The result has been to push citizens, especially the 2nd Amendment supporters (like myself), into buying guns. A LOT OF GUNS.

It seems to me that these maniacs are pushing for an armed confrontation with the sole reason to be a total crackdown, so to make it easy for the implementation of the Jewish/Marxist? agenda.

What do you think?

The True Meaning Of Nazism

Discovered! Iconic photo in Buchenwald is dishonest photo-fakery

By Carolyn Yeager, Dec. 19, 2012

This is the photograph that Allied Supreme Commander General Dwight David Eisenhower ordered, in April 1945, to be posted in every German town and city to show the defeated population the “true meaning of Nazism.”

Was this photo made to order according to Ike’s specifications?

A huge blown-up version then went on tour in the United States for the same purpose, to impress on the American people what evil they had gone to war against; why the sacrifice of blood and treasure was justified! Below: “A traveling exhibit of larger than life size photographs was first shown in St. Louis, MO in summer 1945 and then taken to Washington, DC.

Related articles

• The Perfect Match (buelahman.wordpress.com)

Oliver Stone on James Forrestal by DCDave

Oliver Stone on James Forrestal

One need not spend the time slogging through all 784 pages of Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick’s The Untold History of the United States to realize that what you are going to get is what one might call “approved establishment-left history.”  It might as well have been co-written by Noam Chomsky and Amy Goodman or a team of writers from Z Magazine.  (Who knows?  Maybe it was, or by a team at Langley, Virginia.)   In fact, Goodman has already given the co-authors a soft-ball promotional interview on her program.

To an awful lot of people these days, by far the biggest untold story in American history concerns what really happened on September 11, 2001.  By that litmus test, at a book presentation in California, in the view of one of the attendees, the authors are complete failures, if not phonies.  But they do pass the establishment-left test with flying colors.

That they have the ruling establishment’s stamp of approval is shown by the fact that the book is being piped into lots of homes by the Showtime cable-TV network in the form of a 10-part mini-series.  Showtime is owned by CBS, which is really all that we need to know.  Superficially, there would appear to be a bit of a contradiction here in that CBS has been a leader in attacking any challenge to the official lone-nut and magic-bullet story of the John Kennedy assassination when Stone’s movie JFK is still probably the best known such challenge.  Stone, though, in this instance, along with American University history professor Kuznick, is primarily wearing his left-liberal, virtually pro-Communist hat.  Recall that it was CBS and their news man Edward R. Murrow who did the big hatchet job on anti-Communist crusader Senator Joe McCarthy, as celebrated by the movie, Good Night and Good Luck.  If anti-anti-Communism is primarily what you’re hawking, Showtime is the ideal platform from which to hawk it.

And if you’re gunning primarily at American anti-Communism in the mid-20^th century, the godfather of the movement, James Forrestal, must also be in the crosshairs.  Forrestal was a formidable man, one of the most talented, hard-working, farsighted public servants this country has ever seen.  They say he killed himself, but we have demonstrated beyond any serious doubt that he was assassinated.  In spite of all the falsehoods that we have revealed in the mainstream press’s story of Forrestal’s demise, Stone and Kuznick show us that focus upon this supposed “suicide” remains the primary means by which his persistent enemies attack his message.  Nothing sums up the approach better than the caption under their photograph of Forrestal on page 225:

The first secretary of defense, James Forrestal, suffered a nervous breakdown and, tormented by his own anti-Communist paranoia, committed suicide, jumping from his sixteenth floor room at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

The core supporting text is as follows:

Drew Pearson informed his radio audience that Forrestal was “out of his mind” after Forrestal was discovered in the street and shouting, “The Russians are coming!”  He believed that the Russians had invaded the United States.  Pearson later reported that during his brief stay in Florida, Forrestal had attempted suicide four times by hanging, slashing his wrists, and taking sleeping pills. (pp. 224-225)

Alone in his room, he suffered constant nightmares.  He thought he would suffer the same fate as Czechoslovakian Foreign Minister Jan Masaryk—to be pushed out of a window.  But his condition began to improve, and on the night of May 22, 1949, he stayed up late copying Sophocles’ “The Chorus from Ajax,” in which the hero ponders his fate far from home.  At the word “nightingale” he put his pen down and jumped. (p. 226)

Their references are a newspaper article by the scurrilous Pearson and Boston Globe establishment-left journalist, James Carroll’s 2006 book, House of War: The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of Pentagon Power.  How’s that for scholarship?  They would have done a lot better with Wikipedia.

The reference to Carroll is page 151 of his book, which is in Chapter 3 entitled “The Cold War Begins” with section heading titles like “Forrestal Agonistes,” “Foundational Paranoia,” and “The Russians are Coming,” which encompasses page 151.  Sure enough, referring to Forrestal’s brief stay in Hobe Sound, Florida, at the estate of Under Secretary of State Robert Lovett, Carroll has this passage:

Rumors flew around Washington.  One radio report had it that Forrestal was found in his pajamas a few blocks from Lovett’s house, and he was calling out, “The Russians are coming!”

At that point Carroll has an endnote, which Stone and Kuznick have apparently chosen not to have noticed.  Carroll’s reference is to page 739 of David McCullough’s Truman, but he adds the following:

Drew Pearson was the source of this report.  His previous vilifications of Forrestal make the report unreliable, but Forrestal’s mental illness definitely included delusions that the Soviets had invaded the United States.  See also Hoopes and Brinkley, Driven Patriot, 451, 455.

Unreliable indeed!  Furthermore, Carroll’s assertion that Forrestal definitely believed the Soviets had invaded the United States is a flat-out lie…if not a “delusion” reflecting, perhaps, his own “mental illness.”  Turning to those pages in Hoopes and Brinkley, we find nothing resembling a belief by anyone that the Soviets had invaded the United States.  What we get is a rehash of Arnold Rogow’s attempt to paint Forrestal as paranoid because of his very legitimate concern that two groups with proven homicidal track records were out to get him, the Communists and the Zionists, and that they were monitoring his conversations.  As he put it upon arriving in Florida, “Bob, they’re after me.”  They were, and they still are. (See “Who Killed James Forrestal? Part 1,” especially the “On the Beach” and “Forrestal Was Bugged” sections.)

Just as Stone and Kuznick should have checked out Carroll’s endnote before relaying Drew Pearson’s fanciful Forrestal vilification as gospel truth, Carroll should not have stopped his Hoopes and Brinkley reading at the end of page 455.  As it happens, the key passage is quoted on the Wikipedia page for “The Russians are coming,” and it has been there since 2006:

The allegation originated with Forrestal’s bitter political enemy, columnist Drew Pearson, and has been verified by no other person. This is what Townsend Hoopes and Douglas Brinkley have to say about the episode in their 1992 book, Driven Patriot, the Life and Times of James Forrestal:

Pearson had, in fact, decided to fire his heaviest ammunition in a radio broadcast on April 9. He charged that Forrestal, awakened by the sound of a fire siren (on the night of April 1 at Hobe Sound), had rushed out of his cottage screaming, “The Russians are attacking.” He defined Forrestal’s condition as “temporary insanity.” In subsequent newspaper columns he asserted that Forrestal made three suicide attempts while in Florida — by drug overdose, by hanging, and by slashing his wrists. According to a later statement by [Navy psychiatrist Captain George] Raines, all of these assertions were lies.  — pp. 455-456.

New York Times reporter Arthur Krock is too kind to Pearson in his speculation about the origins of the “Russians are coming” story.  This is from page 256 of his 1968 Memoirs (The “Z” to whom he refers is clearly Ferdinand Eberstadt, as we are able to deduce from other sources.):

After dinner Forrestal went to bed and slept soundly, and Z and Forrestal’s former aide, Rear Admiral John Gingrich, watched him through the night.  He slept so soundly, with the aid of a sedative, that he did not hear a siren blow at about six o’clock in the morning.  After noting that this had not awakened Forrestal, Z went down to the beach for a swim.  He thinks that whoever was reporting to Drew Pearson saw Z come out of the house at that point, and that this gave rise to Pearson’s statement that Forrestal had rushed out of the house when the siren blew, thinking the Russians had attacked the United States.

What he means is that this at-best mistaken identity episode “gave rise” to a complete fabrication for malign purposes.  But it gets even worse for Pearson and Carroll, and, by extension, for Stone and Kuznick.  Carroll’s basic reference for his “Russians are coming” assertion, page 739 of McCullough’s Truman, has this passage, “Drew Pearson reported that Forrestal was ‘out of his mind’ and claimed incorrectly that in Florida Forrestal had rushed out into the street screaming, “The Russians are coming.” (Emphasis added)

So Carroll knew that the information didn’t just come from an unreliable source but that it was revealed as untrue by the Truman biographer whom he references for it.  Nevertheless, he goes forward with his Forrestal slander, making it the title of a section heading and the centerpiece of his case against the former defense secretary.   Stone and Kuznick then proceed to state it as fact because it was reported by Drew Pearson and repeated by James Carroll.  Is this scholarship, dear readers, or is it out-and-out propaganda of the Big Lie variety?

Now let’s look at the rest of what Stone and Kuznick have written about Forrestal’s demise, starting with the photo caption.  Did Forrestal really suffer a nervous breakdown and was he tormented by paranoia?  What did the doctors who treated him at Bethesda Naval Hospital have to say?  Until 2004, when this writer was able to shake the official investigation free from the government with repeated Freedom of Information Act requests, we didn’t know what that was, except for sketchy statements to the press by lead psychiatrist Captain George Raines and various hospital spokesmen.  Now we not only have the Willcutts review board interviews of all the doctors online, but since February of 2010 we have it in a searchable htm format.

Give it a try.  You’ll see that the word “nervous” comes up only once when a testifying doctor describes his qualifications.  “Nervous breakdown” does not appear.  “Paranoia” shows up only in this sentence by the editor, the host of the ARIWatch web site, “Mark Hunter”:  “Forrestal has been called crazy, yet you will search the report in vain for such words as delusion, persecution, anxiety, paranoia.”  You won’t find “paranoid” either, except again in the words of the editor telling us that Forrestal’s Navy driver said that he was neither depressed nor paranoid.

Not that it matters a great deal, but the word “nightmare” doesn’t turn up either nor can it be found as anything that Forrestal experienced at the hospital in Arnold Rogow’s exercise in quack psychoanalysis.  That Forrestal might have feared that he would suffer the same fate as the anti-Communist Jan Masaryk appears more as a manifestation of common sense rather than paranoia, not unlike his belief that he was being bugged and followed by Zionist operatives or that U.S. support for the creation of the state of Israel would in due time cause us to be dragged militarily into the Middle East and would alienate the Arab world.

Not only is virtually everything that Stone and Kuznick say about Forrestal’s demise provably false, but they don’t even do a very good job of parroting their flawed sources.  Drew Pearson didn’t say that Forrestal tried to kill himself four times during his brief stay in Florida.  The fourth unsuccessful attempt supposedly occurred at Bethesda Naval Hospital, according to Pearson.  We have seen that Captain Raines denied that any such attempts took place, and it’s really very hard to imagine that anyone as capable as Forrestal could have been so incompetent at the suicide act.  Raines, by the way, was alone among the doctors in even suggesting that Forrestal might have had any suicidal tendencies.  One can tell that he was trying his very best to uphold the suicide story without resorting to outright whoppers.

Forrestal did not go out the window of his hospital room; he went out the window of the kitchen across the hall from his room.  Also, in saying twice that Forrestal “jumped” Stone and Kuznick fail to address the question of what that bathrobe belt was doing tied around his neck.  The newspapers and the establishment authors have solved that conundrum by speculating that he must have been trying to hang himself out the 16^th floor window, as improbable as that sounds.  It’s not quite the same thing as freestyle jumping, as suggested by Stone and Kuznick.

We learn further from the Willcutts Report that Forrestal was not seen writing from any book just before he went out the window.  The Naval corpsman on duty said that when he looked in at that time the room was dark and Forrestal appeared to be sleeping and that he had witnessed no reading or writing by Forrestal the whole time that he had been on duty. (See the author’s letter to Douglas Brinkley.)

Finally, Forrestal didn’t copy “Chorus from Ajax” by Sophocles that night or at any other time, even though Dr. Raines, trying his best to help the suicide case, volunteered in his testimony that the handwriting looked like Forrestal’s.  The reader can see for himself that it looks nothing of the sort.

The Common Thread

This section is excerpted from the first part of a section with the same name in “Who Killed James Forrestal, Part 2.”

Upon closer examination we find that there is a thread that connects these people who are trying so hard to persuade us that Forrestal’s death was indeed a suicide, and the connecting thread might well run to those whom I have previously identified as likely prime suspects in his murder.  The dust jacket to Rogow’s book says that he is the author of four other books.  It does not name them.  Maybe that is because this biographer who strongly suggests that Forrestal’s opposition to recognizing the state of Israel was based upon Forrestal’s personal anti-Semitism had previously edited the collection entitled The Jew in a Gentile World: An Anthology of Writings about Jews by Non-Jews.  His dangerously paranoid, ethnocentric orientation is well summed up by this sentence from the preface: “Jew-baiters and anti-Semites of one variety or the other–Greek, Roman, and Christian–have largely dominated the Gentile world, and as a result that world has been one in which the Jew has always had to move cautiously and, more often than not, live dangerously.”

Later he wrote a chapter on anti-Semitism in the International Encyclopedia of Social Science.  His is the sort of thinking that gave rise to the modern state of Israel, that is, that Jews can never be safe living in majority gentile populations, so they must have a state of their own.

As for Pearson, at the bottom of the article by John Henshaw entitled, “Israel’s Grand Design: Leaders Crave Area from Egypt to Iraq,” which appeared in The New American Mercury in the spring of 1968, we find the following:

The late John Henshaw was chief legman for columnist Drew Pearson, who later broke with Pearson.  At that time, Henshaw’s expenses were paid by the Anti-Defamation League, a lobby for Israel, which had a “special relationship” with Pearson.  Thus Henshaw’s Middle East insights are unique.

Recall from the first installment of “Who Killed James Forrestal” that the other powerful columnist and radio commentator slandering Forrestal over his Israel opposition, Walter Winchell, also had a very special relationship with the ADL and its domestic spying and eavesdropping operation.

[Eliot] Janeway’s Jewish connections are more tenuous.  Though born Eliot Jacobstein of New York Jews of Lithuanian origin, he changed his last name in his teens and concealed his Jewishness from everyone around him, including his children.  If he plumped for Israel, it would more likely have been on behalf of his employer, Time magazine, than out of a sense of ethnic or religious solidarity.

Occasionally with [Time publisher Henry] Luce and others, not often, he raised a word or hand on that nation’s behalf, from the point of view of a power broker toward an ally.  But this was never personal, and he never acknowledged even in a vague way Jewish religion, culture, or heritage.

— Michael Janeway, The Fall of the House of Roosevelt, Brokers of Ideas and Power from FDR to LBJ, 2004.

And if Janeway was quite consciously lying when he relayed what the safely dead Eberstadt had supposedly said about that Forrestal suicide attempt to Doug Brinkley, it, too, would have been from the point of view of a power broker toward an ally.  It would also have been completely in character.  Janeway regularly did flack work and wrote speeches for New Deal Democrats while on the Luce payroll as a supposedly objective reporter on these same Democrats who were running the country.  He had a taste for power and influence and a nose for seeking it out.  In spite of having been expelled from Cornell, probably for selling stolen library books and having been such an active communist that he wrote for the Moscow Daily News for a time in Russia, he had been able to use his connections to avoid service in the military in World War II.  All of this we learn from Janeway’s son in the latter’s new and very revealing book, cited above.

In sum, the sources of the stories that Forrestal had previously attempted suicide are of a highly questionable, biased quality.  They are as questionable as the stories, themselves, which lack any details, whatsoever.  Pearson’s stories, in particular, are undoubtedly fabrications.  The fact that someone felt the need to make up such stories suggests very strongly, just by itself, that Forrestal did not commit suicide.  Furthermore, it is very unlikely that Pearson made up these stories himself.  What is more likely is that they originated with the people who were responsible for Forrestal’s death.

Drew Pearson

We first encountered Pearson, from a historical chronology standpoint, acting as a shill against Franklin Roosevelt’s anti-Communist, anti-Zionist emissary General Patrick Hurley.  The story is told in “The Old Zionist Smear Machine.”  Hurley’s letter of complaint to Roosevelt elicited the following response:

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL                        August 30, 1943

Dear Pat:

Thanks for yours of August nineteenth referring to a printed story in Drew Pearson’s column.  You are quite right in answering none of the letters from Jews or others who believe Drew Pearson’s columns.

His ill-considered falsehoods have come to the point where he is doing much harm to his own Government and to other nations.  It is a pity that anyone anywhere believes anything that he writes.

So much for Mr. Drew Pearson.

Always sincerely,

(s) FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT

The following passage from Arthur Krock’s Memoirs speaks volumes about the character of Drew Pearson and of the American press generally:

But not until the succession of radio broadcasts by Drew Pearson of which Forrestal was the target did I get an impression of irrationality and indecisiveness that was so completely at variance with the man I had known so well.  After each of these Sunday broadcasts Forrestal would telephone me to discuss, but never decide, what to do about them.

Then came a broadcast that upset him more than any—a report that when Mrs. Forrestal was being held up in front of their Beekman Place home in New York City, her husband “hid” in his quarters.  It happened by chance that I was in a position to refute the charge, having spent that evening in Forrestal’s company and having slept in his guest room that fronted on the East River, a location where we could not—and did not—know of the holdup until the following morning.  It was typical of Mrs. Forrestal that she did not awaken her husband to inform him of what, after all, was a fait accompli.

To Forrestal’s fervently expressed relief, I volunteered to acquaint Pearson with the facts, offering the opinion that he would undoubtedly withdraw the charge.  But though Pearson, on receipt of a written and detailed account, wired me “THANKS.  WILL DO,” the retraction was never forthcoming.  From that time forward I did observe a deterioration of spirit in Forrestal, though, in fairness, it should be noted that the broadcast was only one of the causes.  – pp. 250-251

Indeed, I should think a bigger cause for despondency on Forrestal’s part would have been that his friend Krock, who wrote for the most influential newspaper in the country, would treat something like this as primarily Forrestal’s problem and a reflection upon Forrestal because he was unable to solve it.  The New York Times by itself had the power to expose Pearson, even to drum him out of the profession.  No one of his character should have been permitted the national megaphone that he had, both with a widely circulated syndicated column and a Sunday night broadcast.  His standards of probity were demonstrably so low that he should not have been allowed into the company of decent people, much less to practice journalism.  And to think, it is the likes of a Drew Pearson that Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick exalt as an authority and whose allegations form the very centerpiece of their book, and it is the likes of the deeply patriotic and dedicated James Forrestal that they disparage.

Stone and Kuznick and James Carroll are not alone in coming down on Forrestal, the reason for which was obviously his anti-Communism and, much more importantly, his anti-Zionism.  It started early when his “friends” in the journalistic community like Krock and Walter Trohan lay low while Pearson and Winchell poured out their calumnies.  It continued when he was confined to Bethesda Naval Hospital for almost two months and not one of his powerful friends and admirers bothered to pay him a visit.  These included Robert Lovett, Artemus Gates, Ferdinand Eberstadt, and Bernard Baruch.  Not even the man closest to him at the Pentagon, top aide Marx Leva, bothered to come see him.  They could all see which way the wind was blowing.

Forrestal could no doubt see it himself.  He knew all about how Communist infiltration of the executive branch had resulted in making Joseph Stalin the biggest winner of World War II.  He had to have known about the letter bombs that the Stern Gang had sent in an attempt on the life of President Truman in 1947.  What must he have thought when he saw the whole episode hushed up?  He must have felt like Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster’s sons when they read the unanimous opinion of the press that their father had committed suicide and further, that the police had been turned away from the Foster house the night of his death and that they, the sons, had never come back to the house that night when they knew none of it was true.

The abandonment of Forrestal continued when Pearson’s preposterously false claim of four previous suicide attempts went unchallenged at the time and when the delay in issuing the report of the investigation of his death dragged on and on.  It continued when only the sketchy conclusions of the report were released some four and a half months late and no one seemed to notice that the report did not conclude that Forrestal had committed suicide.  Then, they all held their tongues—including those great press “friends” of his Krock and Trohan—as the report of the investigation itself was held back and kept secret.  The American molders of public opinion continued to hold their tongues when Princeton’s Seeley Mudd Manuscript Library put out a press release announcing that after 55 years the report on Forrestal’s death was finally available to the public.

All I can say, in the best Elizabethan sense of the expression, is fie on them all.

Down with Forrestal, Up with Wallace

It is hardly a surprise that authors who would make the anti-Communist, anti-Zionist Forrestal a major villain of their book should make FDR’s vice-president before Truman, Henry Wallace, a hero.  Consider this excerpt from a predictably glowing review by The Nation:

At many pivotal moments, Stone argues, history could have taken a radically different course. The missed opportunities, the roads not taken—these are Stone’s central themes, which he argues with energy, passion and a mountain of evidence (the companion volume has eighty-nine pages of footnotes).

Case number one: if Henry Wallace had won the vice presidential nomination in 1944, he would have become president when Roosevelt died in 1945, and we probably would not have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and could have avoided the cold war as well. It’s a startling and intriguing argument. Usually we teach about Wallace as the hopeless, left-wing third-party candidate of 1948, when he split from the Democrats and ran on the Progressive Party ticket. McCarthyism had already taken hold of American politics, and Wallace was redbaited into a crushing defeat.

Four years earlier, however, the situation was very different: Wallace was Roosevelt’s incumbent vice president, and the Soviets were our allies. A Gallup poll in July 1944 asked likely Democratic voters whom they wanted on the ticket as veep. Sixty-five percent said Wallace, while Truman came in eighth, with just 2 percent. Roosevelt announced that, were he a delegate, he would vote for Wallace. Claude Pepper, a Democratic senator from Florida, tried to nominate Wallace at the convention, but the conservative party bosses, who opposed him, adjourned the proceedings. “Had Pepper made it five more feet [to the microphone] and nominated Wallace,” Stone argues, “Wallace would have become president in 1945 and…there might have been no atomic bombings, no nuclear arms race, and no Cold War.”

We have had a brief look at the quality of those “eighty-nine pages of footnotes,” and it is not encouraging.  But if Forrestal had been listened to, not only would we not have dropped atom bombs on Japan or anyone, but it is very likely neither China nor North Korea would have been captured by the Communists.  Furthermore, you can take it to the bank that if Wallace had succeeded Roosevelt, all of the Korean peninsula would now be under the Red boot of the latest ruler from the Kim family dynasty.  Owen Lattimore might well have been his Secretary of State.

Here is some more pertinent information about Wallace.  We quoted it before in the previously cited “’Jew’ Tried to Kill Truman in 1947.”  It comes from an undated article in the Jewish Post online:

[Henry] Wallace attracted many Jews: around 30% of his followers were Jews. Among them his fund-raiser, William Gailmore, was an ex-rabbi. He controlled the Bronx thanks to Leo Isaacson who was elected to the congress as a member of the progressive party. Many communists and Jewish communists supported Wallace who always was blamed as a front for Moscow. But Wallace did something else, he never forgot to declare his support of Zionism and a Jewish state. On Dec. 1947, he visited Palestine as a guest of the Labor movement. Wallace also believed in the Judeo-Christian idea and a project to develop the Middle-East for Jews and Arabs alike. Furthermore, he helped the ‘Friends of Lehi in the U.S.” (the so-called ‘Stern Gang.’) And Karabell wrote that on July 23, 1948 the Progressive Party’s convention hosted “the Stern Gang, the Israeli underground paramilitary organization that had blown up buildings and assassinated British officials in Palestine…” He wrote that the Lehi (Freedom Fighters of Israel) were close to the Irgun’s Menachem Begin, but Yitzhak Shamir was the Lehi’s commander together with Natan Yellin-Morand Israel Eldad. Truman was pushed by his pro-Zionist advisors (Mark Cliford) [sic] to support Israel in 1948 in order to attract the Jewish vote away from Wallace’s camp. Also, Dewey was pro-Zionist.

Consider also the following passage from an article entitled “Former VP Henry Wallace, Forgotten Zionist, Stars in Oliver Stone’s New TV Series” in The Algemeiner, which fashions itself “the fastest growing Jewish newspaper in America:

Annoyed by Wallace’s pressure for a more conciliatory U.S. position toward the Soviet Union, Truman ousted him in 1946.

Wallace then became editor of The New Republic. In its pages he strongly defended the Zionist cause, at one point going so far as to suggest that the Jewish underground’s guerrilla war against the British was “in some respects like the fight the American colonies carried on in 1776…”

In October 1947, Wallace spent 10 days in the Holy Land, surveying Jewish settlements and industries and meeting with leaders such as Jewish Agency chairman David Ben-Gurion. Wallace’s glowing prediction that the Zionists would turn the Negev desert into “a veritable garden” received widespread attention. He also met with Irgun Zvai Leumi underground chief Menachem Begin.

Where to start? First, Wallace did not just become editor of The New Republic, he was chosen for the job by a spy for the Soviet Union affiliated with the Cambridge Five, publisher Michael Whitney Straight.  Second, this Lehi organization that he was said to have helped, and which supported him, is the Stern Gang, the terrorists who tried to kill Truman and perpetrated numerous other outrages.  And not long after Wallace saw fit to cozy up to Irgun leader Menachem Begin in Israel, a group of prominent Jewish American intellectuals led by Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt wrote a letter to The New York Times detailing the Irgun’s numerous crimes and outragesthat concluded as follows:

The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a “Leader State” is the goal.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin’s efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.

The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.

Wallace was ousted from the Democratic ticket in 1944 in the nick of time and we slowly began to resist the Communist takeover, but the warning by Einstein et al. was not heeded, and the capitulation to the worst elements of Zionism continues apace.  That it is a complete certainty that no one in the mainstream press will point out Oliver Stone’s lies about the death of James Forrestal is but one measure of the degree of our capitulation.

David Martin

December 5, 2012

Article originally posted at DCDave’s Site (and also at Rense.com)

B’Man’s Sabbath Watch: Apollo Moon Worshippers

I have been following Northerntruthseeker‘s many posts about the ApolloHoax. He has expressed how this TV extravaganza fooled countless millions of people (including myself, who at 8 years old sat in front of the TV and watched them “step on the moon”) and how that it is impossible due to radiation exposure, technological inadequacies, and many other factors.

Of course, since I am such a conspiracy nut, I have studied this to some extent over the years but found myself never actually able to post anything about it, for I could not find the definitive explanations to proceed with any confidence.

That is until NTS provided a video called What Happened On The Moon, which goes into extreme detail, especially regarding the faked photos and videos that were orchestrated to fool us all. It is long and one might have to take it in bites, but I assure you that it is overwhelmingly convincing and I feel like its time for me to share it here.

One of the best moon landing hoax documentaries

00:06:40 == Part 1: Analysis of the Lunar Photography

02:10:20 == Part 2: Environmental Dangers

02:33:30 == Part 3: The Trouble with Rockets

03:35:40 == Conclusion: The Way Forward

I found the interviews and commentary by “NASA officials” and supporting sycophants totally unconvincing and downright foolish. To me, this video destroys their lies and their shrugging off the questions.

Also note, when reading NTS’s blog that he thoroughly dismantles the current Mars hoax. Well worth the read and evaluation.

h/t NorthernTruthSeeker

Grandpa Paul Blames The People

B’Man’s Guest Post: DCDave’s Chomsky, the Fraud, on 9/11

Chomsky, the Fraud, on 9/11

With his track record of rejecting one secret-government outrage after another in his trite fashion as just so much “conspiracy theory,” the position on 9/11 of America’s leading pied piper of the left, Noam Chomsky, was as predictable as the sunrise.  “Chomsky dispels 9/11 conspiracies with sheer logic” proclaims the headline of Chomsky’s talk to a rapt audience on YouTube.  As of this writing, almost 587,000 people have viewed the presentation.  Of those weighing in, some 72 percent said they liked what they saw; the others said they disliked it.

One might be dismayed at these numbers, suggesting as they do that a large majority of the viewers of the video found Chomsky’s extremely shallow argument in favor of the government’s case persuasive.  On the other hand, one might take heart in that more than a quarter of the viewers of the video turned thumbs down on it.  The people who really care about what Chomsky has to say are generally committed leftists, mainly of the academic “intellectual” stripe.  These are the ones to whom Chomsky pitches his message and they are bound to make up the lion’s share of the viewers of the video.  On most issues, they could almost all be expected to like what Chomsky has to say.  It is somewhat encouraging, then, to see that 28 percent clearly don’t.  The readers of this article might want to do their part to make that number go higher.

Unfortunately, the opinion of this MIT linguistics professor still carries a lot of weight in some circles, however poorly supported it might be, and it is very poorly supported in this instance.  In fact, were it to be made by someone of lesser prestige and intellectual clout, it might even be regarded as downright trivial and silly.  The “sheer logic” that he invokes is that had people in the upper reaches of the U.S. government been involved, the news of it would have certainly leaked out and it would have been fatal, both for the perpetrators of the outrage and for the Republican Party.

The argument is quite similar to the one that was made to me concerning the murder of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster during the early days of the Bill Clinton administration:

I had just finished describing the outlines of the case for murder to a friend of long standing who I had not seen for a while. He is a professional historian of a somewhat standard liberal political orientation. “I can’t believe,” he said, “that if what you are telling me is true that Republicans like Dick Armey or Newt Gingrich wouldn’t be making all kinds of political hay over it.” The logic is impeccable if one believes that we really do have the vigorous, two-party system that we think we have.

There is something to Chomsky’s logic as well, if we really have the vigorous and aggressive free press that serves as a counterweight to power abuse in government that Chomsky would have us believe that we do.  Two compelling questions immediately come to mind.  Why would anyone involved in such a heinous criminal scheme leak out the information, and who could he or anyone else who got wind of it tell it to?  He is assuming a very different American press from the one that is yet to report the news that the three-judge panel that appointed Kenneth Starr later ordered him to append to his report an addendum submitted by a witness in the case that totally demolished his conclusion that Vince Foster committed suicide.  It is also a very different press from the one that failed to report the news that the long-secret official report on the death of Secretary of Defense James Forrestal had been released and that it exposed an ongoing cover-up.  In fact, the complicity of the press across the board in one major government outrage after another is a hallmark of the times.  It is a fact that seems to have completely escaped Chomsky’s attention, and somehow he still manages to keep a reputation as a leading critic of the American system.

What is on display in Chomsky’s talk is really just a smattering of the “Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression,” particularly no. 11, “Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance.”  As we say, “With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant.”  Indeed, Chomsky acts as if addressing the actual evidence is beneath him.

And this brings us to another of the techniques whose use by Chomsky might not be quite so obvious.  That is no. 7, “Invoke authority.”  It is not obvious because the authority that he invokes is none other than himself, and he does it with his manner.  It has probably intimidated generations of students and colleagues.  It is really hard to imagine anyone else propounding such complete nonsense with such surpassing confidence.

He embellishes his authoritative image by mixing in a hint of no. 10, “Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.”  He does this by alluding to the various loose ends in the official 9/11 story—without specifying them, of course—and comparing them to the loose ends that one finds in even the best controlled scientific experiments.  The message is that “this is something that ‘we scientists’ know about and you people of lesser intellect had best not bother yourselves with such complexities,” even if the “complexity” is something as obvious as a building falling as in a controlled demolition or a virtually untrained pilot pulling stunts that are beyond the capacity of the most experienced test pilot.

Exalted academic figure though he might be, Chomsky is not above using the old schoolyard bully technique of no. 5, calling the skeptics names.  Well, he doesn’t exactly call them “conspiracy theorists,” but he says that they engage in conspiracy theories, which is pretty much the same thing, and he says it in a very dismissive fashion.  It’s really an unworthy display for someone whose profession ought to give him a fine appreciation of the meaning of words.  The term “conspiracy theory” was coined to contrast with the ever-popular “lone, crazed gunman” explanation for assassinations.  In the case of 9/11 what we have are competing conspiracy theories, the official one with 19 young Arab fanatics armed with box cutters, and various other theories, probably the most popular of which is that it was an American-Israeli secret-government job.  The question at issue is which of the competing conspiracy theories has the most veracity.

To reach that determination there is really no substitute for examining the evidence, which is to say, using the inductive method.  Deduction does have its place, though, and, as it happens, it works particularly well in the 9/11 case, but it leads one to the opposite conclusion to the one reached by Chomsky.  All one need do is put himself in the place of Osama bin Laden as the supposed master schemer.  Is it at all believable that he would sign off on a plan that depended for its success upon the complete incompetence of America’s air defenses?  And how could he count on the passengers and crew unanimously knuckling under to a few guys armed with nothing more lethal than box cutters?   How could he have any confidence that his novice pilots would be able to fly and navigate these large commercial airliners well enough to carry out their very difficult mission?  On its face, the plan would not work, and one really doesn’t need all that great an imagination to come up with any number of schemes that could wreak tremendous havoc that would have a far greater chance to succeed.  They wouldn’t even require that the perpetrators commit suicide in the process.

We are given to believe that bin Laden was some kind of great military leader in rallying resistance fighters against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, but any military leader given to attempting such hopeless schemes as this one wouldn’t have lasted a week.

“Oh, but it did succeed,” you say.  Yes, something succeeded, but believing that it was Osama bin Laden’s plot really requires an exceptional degree of faith in our leaders and our opinion molders.

“Something could have gone wrong with an insiders’ plot,” Chomsky tells us, but the chances of things going wrong with the sort of outsiders’ plot they’re selling us is many times greater.  And it looks like some things did go wrong with the actual plot, as opposed to the official fanciful one.  For instance, Building 7 fell a few hours after Buildings 1 and 2 fell even though it was not even struck by an airplane.  Is that the one that Flight 93 was supposed to hit?  It is evident that Flight 93 did not crash intact into the ground in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.  It really looks like something went wrong and the plane had to be destroyed in the air.  Something has certainly gone wrong, as well, when it can be reported that Building 7 has collapsed when it only has a rather minor fire down in one corner.

When the press is covering up for you, you have the luxury of making any number of mistakes in carrying out your plot.  The president, himself, can even tell the public on more than one occasion that before he was told of the second plane hitting Tower 2, he had seen on TV images of the first plane hitting Tower 1.

As for what might happen to a real insiders’ plot leaker, as opposed to scenario that Chomsky paints, one need look no farther than the case of Eugene B. Dinkin, the Army cryptographic code operator who got wind of the Kennedy assassination plot a month before it took place.  We can find Phillip Nelson’s summary of the story in “Abuse of Psychiatry in the Kennedy Assassination.”

There was a time when I admired and respected Noam Chomsky.  I was wrong.  My eyes were opened to Chomsky’s essential fraudulence when I became aware of his position on the John F. Kennedy assassination.  I put my discoveries in writing in March and April of 2001 with “Chomsky, the Fraud” and “Chomsky, the Fraud, Part 2.”  Those articles follow, with updated links.

Chomsky, the Fraud

Originally, I posted on Usenet a simple statement by Noam Chomsky that I found on the Internet expressing disbelief in any high level conspiracy in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. My simply-stated conclusion was that this would-be leading American dissident must be a fraud to profess such a belief. I offered nothing more to back up my conclusion, until I received the following public reply, which prompted me to respond as we see below “Amerikanski’s” statement:

Amerikanski wrote:  “Chomsky is a linguist. As such, he has a fundamental concern for how words are used and the meaning of statements. All he’s basically saying is that, in regards to the Kennedy assassination, there are lots of poorly formed theories around regarding conspiracies but few provable facts. I think he’s stating the obvious. How does that make him a fraud?”

I think Chomsky expresses himself quite clearly, and you have thoroughly mischaracterized it. Is that why you snipped the quote, so people could not readily see how you had mischaracterized it? Let’s look at it again.

Chomsky Comment re JFK Assassination

I haven’t read the [Michael] Parenti transcript you mention or what he has published on the same topic (I understand that there are articles, also a book, if I recall). You asked me to comment on his statement that (1) neither Cockburn nor I “knows a damn thing about the assassination” and that (2) we “are looking at the issue from a left wing perspective…”

I can’t answer for Cockburn, but for me, statement (1) is close to true and statement (2) is gibberish, neither true nor false.

On (1), it’s true that I know very little about the assassination. The only thing I’ve written about it is that the claim that it was a high-level conspiracy with policy significance is implausible to a quite extraordinary degree.

History isn’t physics, and even in physics nothing is really “proven,” but the evidence against this claim is overwhelming, from every testable point of view, remarkably so for a historical event. Given that conclusion, which I think is very well founded (that I have written about, a lot), I have no further interest in the assassination, and while I’ve read a few of the books, out of curiosity, I haven’t given the matter any attention and have no opinion about how or why JFK was killed.

People shouldn’t be killed, whether they are presidents or kids in the urban slums. I know of no reason to suppose that one should have more interest in the JFK assassination than lots of killings not far from the White House.

Given the plain facts about (1), I think it is clear why (2) is gibberish. Parenti or anyone else who reads what I have written can readily determine, if rational, that (2) is gibberish, because of the plain facts about (1). That’s simple logic. One cannot adopt a left-wing perspective (or any other perspective) on an issue that one has no interest in and nothing to say about.

On the single matter just mentioned, there is no “left-wing” or “right-wing” perspective. The evidence is so overwhelming that questions of interpretation hardly arise. If someone can show that they do, I’ll gladly look. But what I have looked at on this question (for example, various elaborate theories about JFK’s alleged intentions on Vietnam, or policy changes resulting from his death, or similar things about Cuba, the Cold War, etc.) simply does not begin to withstand rational inquiry. That’s true even of work by personal friends who are serious scholars on other issues, but who become so irrational on this issue that they cannot even read the words that are before their eyes, sometimes in the most remarkable ways.

As for whether “power elites perceived JFK to be a threat to the status quo,” the statement is close to meaningless. If someone can produce some coherent version of the statement, and then some evidence for that version, I’ll be glad to look at it.

I don’t know Parenti’s work well, but most of what I’ve read is quite good and useful, except on this topic. That’s not unique to him. The JFK assassination has engendered a kind of cult-like reaction, and ordinarily rational people act in what seem to me very strange ways.

Noam Chomsky

He has nothing to say here about “lots of poorly formed theories” about the Kennedy assassination. Certainly there are, which has nothing to do with the fact that there is obviously a high-level conspiracy here. From the first hour to the present, the entire American press has been trying to sell us on the absurd notion that Lee Harvey Oswald, with a wretched excuse for a rifle with a mismounted scope pulled off not just a superhuman feat of rapid-fire marksmanship, but actually performed black magic to kill the President. What’s more, he did it without a single trace of a motive, and then this young man with intelligence-flunky written all over him is silenced by a man with tight connections to Meyer Lansky’s mob. The motive for that, we are given to believe, is that the sentimental strip-joint operator, Jack Ruby, wanted to spare poor Jackie Kennedy a trial.

If you want to see the black magic, go to your video store and rent the Zapruder film, which is now available to the public in its original form. We are told, because of time constraints, Oswald only fired three shots. One of them missed and chipped a curb far ahead of the Kennedy vehicle. It is too wild for it to have been a simple miss by Oswald. Shill Gerald Posner says that was Oswald’s first shot, which he waited until a tree was between him and Kennedy to fire, and the shot hit a limb and wildly ricocheted. Yeah, right. But that’s still not the black magic. That comes on the second shot. That’s the one they say entered Kennedy’s back about 6 inches below his collar, exited upward at his throat (?) and then changed directions somehow to pass downward through John Connally’s back, passed through his wrist, and lodged in his left thigh. This was the “magic bullet.” The real magic of it, though, is that it hesitated a few seconds, as you can clearly see from the film, between the time it hit Kennedy and when it hit Connally. The government/press shills that the would-be dissident, Chomsky, would have us believe in here tell us that Connally manifested a delayed reaction in the film. Well, here, Noam my boy, history is physics. The puffing out of Connally’s cheeks is not neurological, it is purely physical and could not be a delayed reaction. It comes from the bullet blasting the air out of one of Connally’s lungs, the one that it collapsed. Nothing could be clearer than that it is a separate shot, that is, a fourth shot and, therefore, we must have at least two gunners.

The third shot looks like it almost makes Kennedy’s head explode and it knocks him backward and to the left. That that bullet came from the 6th floor of the Schoolbook Depository is about as unlikely as the first one coming from there, but these two unlikelihoods pale behind the utter and complete impossibility of the magic bullet shot.

The Navy then participated in the cover-up with a fraudulent autopsy, and the FBI did its usual job of intimidating witnesses and misreporting what they said in its work for the Warren Commission. Nothing compares, though, to the work done by the press. The best one example of press cover-up you will ever see was performed by Chomsky’s fellow fake leftist critic of the system, Ben Haig Bagdikian, who has matched Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent with his much-cited The Media Monopoly. Bagdikian cut his teeth in journalism by blatant and obvious cover-up work on the Kennedy assassination which you can see here: whatreallyhappened

And this is not a high-level conspiracy? What, pray tell, is it, then? But interviewer Adam Jones is typical of the legions of well-meaning admirers of the man when he says beginning his March 7, 1996, interview, “Noam Chomsky is one of the great moral and intellectual figures of the century.” adamjones.freeservers.com

Now I ask you, could anyone truly meeting such a description have written such pernicious nonsense about the pivotal political event of the 20th century for the United States and perhaps for the world? No, the man is an out and out fraud, fraud, FRAUD.

Chomsky, the Fraud, Part 2

A few days ago I received the following private e-mail in response to my posting of “Chomsky the Fraud” on Usenet and on my web site. My response follows. I had hoped to have an ongoing dialogue, but I have received no response from “Critic” (who left a name, but I don’t know that the critic wants to go public with an identity). I sincerely hope that neither “Critic” nor the other readers will be content with reading only what they see here. The cited URLs and materials related to them are extraordinarily informative.

My Critic

I don’t see how you have proven [Noam Chomsky] is a fraud. Even if he is wrong about Kennedy, is he then a fraud? This sounds all too Robespierre/St Jus to me. I’m sure you might understand why Chomsky might want to avoid this subject, you may disagree, but I think he is more productive attacking the root to many problems of today. You focus on stuff like Cointelpro and I guess there is a great deal of utility to this (it certainly makes for interesting reading) while he attacks the fundamentals, the basic political and philosophical assumptions that created such programs. Exposing massive discrepancies between the nature of US news and the actual events, and what is said in other sources, Chomsky attacks what is commonly accepted, the mainstream media. I will give you the reason he is such a powerful figure in my eyes: simply, because he doesn’t have to do this, I cannot see how he gains, I cannot see hubris here. He is a very public figure. (EX: Defending the holocaust denier guy’s rights to free speech, though a brave show of principle, landed him much controversy: the media picks up on this not his comprehensive treatment of East Timor) He must carefully choose his battles, and his arguments: even you must admit, when you read him in an interview, he really hates speculating on issues he knows less about and is careful to mention when he is just speculating. He uses only public (freely available) sources. He knows that the key for the left- the weak attacking the strong, is in bullets not in caps, in potent/cogent evidence and potent arguments. That he doesn’t focus on Monsanto when he criticizes the WTO doesn’t mean he is on the take from the biotech sector: a journalist must make choices. Overwhelmingly, those that participate in protests and so on, are in some way familiar to his criticisms of globalization/U.S. foreign policy, many are very much influenced by it. He turned me on to politics. He introduced me to Parenti, and maybe to you. Maybe. Fact is, however detailed an analysis of Chomsky’s disavowal of Kennedy plot is: this is still the stuff for an elite group of “anarchist-aristocracy”. It could never be as potent as an argument on why we should not care about Kennedy at all, after all he was not really such a King Arthur as history books try to suggest. Whoever planted this CIA-Chomsky to deny the assassination and hence the “biggest crime of all”, is doing a horribly fucked up job keeping the general public from dissent. I understand what you mean about providing a safe route for dissent but limiting the scope of it.

Chomsky worries about making generalizations. I don’t. I think you are a dangerous element on the left. Planted in the left movement to cause division, mistrust. After all let’s look at the record. Today he writes an article on the Intifada, and provides ZNET with it, I read it and his analysis is a great supplement to the newswires and opinions pieces I scan throughout the day; or Chomsky delivers a talk to the TEAMSTERS on the effects of globalization, signs a few petitions, responds to MY emails (yes he found the time to do so). You write about Chomsky, and how he failed to grasp the importance of the Kennedy Affair: who helps people, and who doesn’t? Who is an effective force on the left, who isnt? Perhaps it’s just a matter of charisma, or webpage design; but I trust him more than I do in you. I am more inclined to think you are an agent of so and so, and a better one than Chomsky would have been.

Can you not see that philosophers like Proudhon, Bakunin, Chomsky BIG ET AL., are correct to suggest that proper revolutionary momentum comes from the bottom up. NO less true, a revolution of any form should attempt to change things from the bottom, the foundation up. Do you accept the one party American state, the electoral college, the pervasion of American aristocrats and special interests in politics, the foreign policy choices: all of this except the existence of the CIA? Or is the CIA nothing but an extension of this cancerous political system? Attack the root not the symptom.

“Critic”

My Response

Dear “Critic”,

I would like to thank you for your very thoughtful response to my attack on Noam Chomsky. This is the sort of reasoned reply—so unlike the usual orchestrated contrived jibes on Usenet—that  permits us to advance toward the truth. I was going to suggest that we take our exchange public, but the only place where one can do so freely is on Usenet, and that would expose us to the host of professional truth-derailers that I have just got through lamenting. Rather, what I am doing, and I hope you don’t mind, is copying Hugh Turley and Michael Morrissey. Mr. Turley was a sort of garden variety Republican until he began looking into the mysterious death of Deputy White House Counsel, Vincent Foster, Jr. You can get some idea as to how far his political education has come by studying the site he co-authored at
http://www.fbicover-up.com
.  Dr. Morrissey is of that school that included me when I was a subscriber to and believer in The New York Review of Books and The Washington Monthly. He is from among the better-informed academic left. He is also probably the most trenchant critic of Noam Chomsky on the Net. I don’t know if he has come right out and called Chomsky a fraud, as I have, but he certainly comes pretty darned close. Certainly, what he has written reveals Chomsky as either a fraud or a fool, and who could possibly believe that he is the latter.

You say, “I’m sure you might understand why Chomsky might want to avoid this subject,” referring to the Kennedy assassination, suggesting that he has bigger fish to fry and that, were he to do so, he might interfere with this more important larger message. But he has not avoided the subject at all. On numerous occasions he has indicated that he buys into the Warren Commission conclusion of a lone gunman and thoroughly discounts the notion that there has a high level conspiracy. In so doing, he does something that is just as bad or worse. He downplays the charge that there has been a massive cover-up involving the highest levels of the government as well as all elements of the American opinion-molding industry, the newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, and book publishing.

Understand what has gone on with the Kennedy assassination and you understand the forces that rule us. You also align yourself with the majority of the American public that doesn’t believe the official story, not just with a small minority of left-wing academic types who are always harping on the ills of the “capitalist system.” So, no, not only has Chomsky not avoided the subject of the Kennedy assassination, but I certainly don’t “understand why he might want to avoid the subject” if he is interested in getting at the truth and in making a difference politically.

Although Chomsky might not have, in a literal sense, avoided the issue of the Kennedy assassination, you are not entirely wrong in a more general sense. He might as well have avoided it for all of the importance he lends it in his larger thesis. And, you or Michael or Hugh can correct me if I am wrong, but he has avoided other outrages in the wake of the JFK assassination, such as the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King.

Quite logically given his approach to things, he and all the other important opinion molders of the academic left have avoided more recent ongoing outrages like the Foster murder, the Oklahoma City bombing frame-up, the Waco massacre, TWA 800, Pan Am 103, and on and on. One gets the impression that they will still be keeping their powder dry while we are all led off in handcuffs. If Professor Chomsky and his ZNet crew were all fake left opposition it’s hard to see how they would behave any differently.

I can’t help contrasting Chomsky and his crowd to some of the real radical opponents to the system we had in the earlier part of the century. I think, in particular, of Upton Sinclair. I believe that Sinclair was misguided in his support for U. S. participation in World War I, and in his generally socialist orientation, but he was certainly completely genuine in his convictions. I simply do not believe that Chomsky genuinely believes what he has said and written about the Kennedy assassination. He can’t be that stupid. His defenders on Kennedy, I think, probably agree with me, but buy in to his larger arguments and think that he is forgivably dissembling on Kennedy for tactical reasons. Contrast that with this passage in Sinclair’s The Brass Check.

“Also I met one of the high editors of the ‘[Los Angeles] Times,’ and important personage whom they feature. Talking about the question of journalistic integrity, he said: ‘Sinclair, it has been so long since I have written anything that I believed that I don’t think I would know the sensation.’

“My answer was: ‘I have written on public questions for twenty years, and I can say that I have never written a single word that I did not believe.’”

That LA Times editor, I believe, could be any prominent American journalist today, and virtually all who are not so prominent as well. Upton Sinclair, by contrast, had to self-publish The Brass Check. Noam Chomsky gets his stuff widely published, and he is in big demand on America’s campuses. That, unfortunately, is the difference between the real thing and a fraud.

As I said, Michael Morrissey has devoted a lot more attention to Chomsky than I have. Let me call your attention to some of Morrissey’s URLs with an excerpt from each:

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/morrisseyrethinkingchomsky1993.shtml

Rethinking Chomsky

Rethinking Camelot (Boston: South End Press, 1993) is Noam Chomsky’s worst book. I don’t think it merits a detailed review, but we should be clear about the stand that “America’s leading intellectual dissident,” as he is often called, has taken on the assassination. It is not significantly different from that of the Warren Commission or the majority of Establishment journalists and government apologists, and diametrically opposed to the view “widely held in the grassroots movements and among left intellectuals” (p. 37) and in fact to the view of the majority of the population.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010505055330/http://www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/chomcorr.htm

What does all this mean?

What is the message we are hearing from Chomsky and CAIB/CAQ? It is clear:

No AIDS conspiracy

No assassination conspiracy

No connection between Vietnam and the assassination

Surely it cannot escape our attention that this is precisely the same message we have been hearing from the government, from the mainstream press, and the so-called “scientific community.” Nor should it escape our attention, as I think even this brief summary shows, that the argumentation presented to support these conclusions is patently false in each case.

Of course it is not necessarily wrong to agree with the government. But when “radical dissidents” agree so completely with the government, on such important questions, and the reasoning employed is so clearly wrong, the warning bells should sound.

Ding dong.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020205225821/http://www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/sal1web.htm

From Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent, by Robert F. Barsky, p. 114, we learned what Prof. Chomsky thinks of us:

Chomsky employs this appeal to reason in probing two important issues; the relevance of the irrational and the role of the intellectual in society. To the irrational he consigns “fundamentalist religion; JFK conspiracy cults…”

Also of interest to me are pages 140 and 141, which tell us about Chomsky’s position regarding his vigorous defense of Walt Rostow returning from governmental service as the quintessential hawk to be a professor at MIT. With an enemy such as Prof. Chomsky, Walt Rostow needs no friends.

Finally, I note your observations about Chomsky’s writings on the latest Intifada. I received it through the Middle Eastern Realities mailing list. I was quite favorably impressed with it and was going to spread it around except for its daunting length. I was particularly impressed with his mention of the USS Liberty incident. Then I read it again carefully. Chomsky’s account of the incident is misleading and inaccurate.

Here’s Chomsky: “There was also another case. There was an Israeli attack on a U.S. spy ship, USS Liberty, which killed about 35 sailors and crewman and practically sank the ship. The Liberty didn’t know who was attacking it. The attackers were disguised. Before they were disabled, they got messages back to the 6th Fleet Headquarters in Naples, who also didn’t know who was attacking it. They sent out Phantoms, which were nuclear-armed, because they didn’t have any that weren’t nuclear-armed, to respond to whoever was attacking it, and they didn’t know who they were supposed to bomb – Russia, Egypt, you know, anybody. Apparently the planes were called back directly from the Pentagon sort of at the last moment. But that event alone could have lead [sic] to a nuclear war.”

Now here’s a much better-informed account:

By James M. Ennes Jr.

June 1993, Page 19

Twenty-six years have passed since that clear day on June 8, 1967 when Israel attacked the USS Liberty with aircraft and torpedo boats, killing 34 young men and wounding 171. The attack in international waters followed over nine hours of close surveillance. Israeli pilots circled the ship at low level 13 times on eight different occasions before attacking. Radio operators in Spain, Lebanon, Germany and aboard the ship itself all heard the pilots reporting to their headquarters that this was an American ship. They attacked anyway. And when the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime.

There is no question that this attack on a U.S. Navy ship was deliberate. This was a coordinated effort involving air, sea, headquarters and commando forces attacking over a long period. It was not the “few rounds of misdirected fire” that Israel would have the world believe. Worse, the Israeli excuse is a gross and detailed fabrication that disagrees entirely with the eyewitness recollections of survivors. Key American leaders call the attack deliberate. More important, eyewitness participants from the Israeli side have told survivors that they knew they were attacking an American ship.

There was never any doubt in the minds of the United States government, from the Liberty to the White House, as to who was doing the attacking. They had seen the earlier surveillance planes and they had heard the radio communications back and forth. Lyndon Johnson personally allowed the attack to continue. For more information on this subject go to  http://home.roadrunner.com/~gidusko/liberty/ and
http://www.gtr5.com/
and follow their leads, leads that are not likely to be advertised on ZNet.

As you will see from reading Morrissey, Chomsky has misrepresented the effects on U.S. Vietnam War policy of the Kennedy assassination. I believe the case can be made that the effect on U.S. Middle East policy was even greater. But fake opposition leaders wouldn’t want us looking under that rock, would they?

p.s. The people at ZNet predictably ignored me when I sent them this absolutely definitive information on the cover-up of the murder of Deputy White House Counsel, Vincent Foster.

More Morrissey and Chomsky

Readers should not be surprised that Noam Chomsky’s predictable defense of the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory has intersected with Michael Morrissey’s continued writing about government outrages.   We found this short piece by Kevin Barrett on the Internet, which begins this way:

In my dialogue-gone-wrong with Noam Chomsky, I was shocked when Chomsky argued that controlled demolition doesn’t mean anything, because that would just mean Bin Laden did the demolitions.

Obviously nobody with a three-digit IQ, much less a four-digit one like Chomsky’s, could fail to realize that only high-level Western insiders would have the access, expertise, and high-tech explosives to take down the three tallest skyscrapers ever intentionally demolished. Even more obviously, Bin Laden, a terminal (circa 2001) kidney patient in a cave, was hardly in a position to order NIST, FEMA and the FBI to cover up the demolitions…

In his new essay Controlled Demolition as Limited Hangout, Michael Morrissey explains why the fairly obvious fact that there were no passenger airliner crashes on 9/11 is…well, important.

And still there are people who score well on IQ tests who follow Chomsky’s lead on important political matters.  I think that this left-wing version of the late William F. Buckley is much better suited for his new cameo role in MIT Gangnam Style (minute 3:21).

David Martin

November 8, 2012

Addendum

A reader has alerted me to the news that the friendly-fire-slain Pat Tillman had been in contact with Chomsky.  Chomsky can be heard very uncomfortably confirming it here.

How about that?  I was going to say it, but I find that J. Bruce Campbell in “Killing Pat Tillman” has already made at least one key point for me:

Tillman had naively made contact with the CIA’s Noam Chomsky to discuss his plans to reveal what he knew about the lies of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in the War on Terror. He was apparently also angry about the US Army’s support of the Afghan opium trade, started up by the army after the Taliban had eradicated it one hundred percent during their four-year reign. The US Army authorized the Northern Alliance to resume poppy production, according to Fox News shortly after we invaded Afghanistan. (Emphasis added)

Campbell doesn’t say how he knows that Chomsky is CIA or what Tillman had said and was planning to say further to Chomsky, but it all sounds very plausible given what we already know.  The parallels with William F. Buckley may well be even greater than we thought, because Buckley was known to have worked for the CIA.

And speaking of Chomsky’s posited 9/11 leaker, as Campbell suggests, Pat Tillman’s attempt to leak to the fake dissident Chomsky might well have been what got him killed.  That’s one of the reasons the secret government creates phony critics.  They serve as magnets for would-be whistleblowers.  It’s really a very devious business.  It’s also pretty obvious that Tillman, unfortunately, had not read my earlier “Chomsky, the Fraud” articles.

David Martin

November 11, 2012

So Close, But Never Seem To Get To The Finish Line

I subscribe to several bloggers, videographers, news sources, etc (some I agree with and some I don’t) and my Reader gets about 500 entries or more per day. I generally scan through them and when one catches my attention, I sometimes make note and/or it instigates a thought process or reconstitutes my current thinking, giving me clarity. This is how I come to my ways of thinking and therefore gives me ideas for new posts. Many times, I will draft my thoughts, and that draft will stay in the draft folder for months at a time before I post on it.

I have said a few times that many of these people I follow seem to get close to naming the problem, but always fall a bit short. They use innocuous names and ideas, when the truth is blatant and obvious. Too many feel the need to stay politically correct and not call out the real perpetrators, so they use terminology that is watered down. Many others, who are thinkers and provide excellent information in certain correct realms, seem to stop short at getting to the real issue. I try to figure out if they are truthful and just ignorant or are disinformation specialists. This is a difficult differentiation.

I have seen a couple of videos recently where these types get close, but miss the cigar.

Now think about who he names and their affiliation to a certain group. But he won’t quite say it, will he? Why is that?

Here is another. This man has put out an extensive amount of work and in most cases, I find little I disagree with. But, the closer he gets to naming the evil, he ALWAYS falls short (why, I don’t know for sure):

The art of debunking only goes so far, apparently. I’ve addressed this before, but how can someone spend so much time explaining how history is generally a lie with a purpose to mislead us, use sources from the History Channel, then ignore one of that channel’s biggest draws, all the Nazi Germany stuff? How is it possible that virtually everything about the official American history is fraught with lies and distortions, yet they cannot look into the biggest hoax (and reason behind it) that we have ever been brainwashed into believing? Why cannot these smart people make the obvious leap in logic on this ONE subject, when they can on every other?

Here is a written example at the Economic Collapse Blog where they skirt all around the issue, but fail to connect dots?

One of the fundamental problems with our current financial system is that it is based on debt.  Just take a look at the United States.  The way our system works today, the vast majority of all money is “created” either when we borrow money or the government borrows money.  Therefore, the creation of more money creates more debt.  Under such a system, it should not be surprising that the total amount of debt in the United States is more than 30 times larger than it was just 40 years ago…

…

Why should banks be allowed to create money?

That is a very good question.

Why should sovereign governments ever have to borrow money from anyone?

That is another very good question.

Our current system is designed to enrich the bankers and get everyone else into debt.

And is that not exactly what has happened?

…

So why don’t we go to such a system immediately?

Well, the transition to such a system would undoubtedly be a major shock to the global financial system, and most people try to avoid significant short-term pain even if there are tremendous long-term benefits.

More importantly, however, is that the bankers have a tremendous amount of power in our society today, and they would move heaven and earth to keep a debt-free monetary system from ever being implemented.

Who runs those banks? Who invented debt based money (Usury)? Who controls every aspect of the monetary system? Who controls almost every aspect of corporation control and manipulation? Who controls every bit of print and video media, besides the alternative media (and obviously, a good bit of that is controlled by the same people, as well… Alex Jones being an example)?

Do you think that these monsters will ever give up their control? Why doesn’t that blog ask the obvious question or at least elude to the ones who invented the system, perpetuate it, and now have such a stronghold that they will NEVER give it up?

The Video Rebel doesn’t mind saying it (or is very close and his previous posts never held back).

On 9-11-2012 the Israelis working in conjunction with their Saudi allies attacked the American consulate in Benghazi killing the US ambassador Chris Stevens and others. As I have said before, the Saudi royal family were installed by His Majesty’s Jewish government. They are descendants of Sabbatean Jews which is to say they were Satanists as are most of Israel’s leaders.

Louis Farrakhan will say it (or something close). He keeps talking about Israel, but we know what that means. We know that it is a “Jewish State”.

But here is one that is not afraid to name it out right (and I appreciate it very much):

h/t BrassCheckTV, JohnFriendsBlog, The Economic Collapse Blog, and The Activist Post

Not A “Shred Of Hard Evidence”???

Image found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AE-Fred.jpg

I push for knowing the real truth regarding all of America’s false history (the “history” based upon ignorance, misdirection and/or outright lies). I have mentioned to anyone listening that most of what we are told is downright false, or uses slithers of truth, but poisoned with lies with an intent to mislead you and form an “official” belief paradigm in your brain. It is a strong draw for all of us to want to believe, but after so many lies, one has to start acknowledging that they are LIARS. Their overall purpose is still debatable, but it does become evident to someone truly seeking and not simply gullible enough to believe what the TV and major publications tell us.

I featured a review of Mike Campbell’s book (by DCDave), “Amelia Earhart: The Truth at Last” in August (the book can be purchased via links found at Mike’s site). The review is excellent and does a good job synopsizing the story, including accounts from those who saw Earhart and Noonan at Saipan.

What is disturbing is that certain publications, TV programs, etc seem intent upon ignoring these revelations and have no real desire to look into these first hand accounts.

So, what to do? You do what Mike did. Write a letter to the publication, again informing them of their ignorance (or purposeful avoidance). I want to help Mike illuminate this, for there are significant conclusions that one must come to, once they understand why there is a cover-up.

Mike’s letter:

To:  Appropriate Editor at American Heritage Magazine and Tom D. Crouch, regarding Mr. Crouch’s  Summer 2012 article about Amelia Earhart and TIGHAR

I’ve just been informed about Tom Crouch’s Summer 2012 article about Amelia Earhart in American Heritage, and read it with mounting disgust. Once again, American Heritage and Tom Crouch, senior Smithsonian Air and Space curator, have teamed up to write almost exactly the same article they put out in 2007 for the 70th anniversary of AE’s loss. The piece is an extensive discussion of TIGHAR’s vapid, worn-out theory, albeit with a passing mention of the possibility that Gillespie might be wrong, because “most researchers agree that AE crashed and sank near Howland Island” or something similarly inane.  Mr. Crouch’s piece was probably written before the late June 2012 publication of my new book, Amelia Earhart: The Truth at Last, which presents the most comprehensive case ever for the presence and death of Amelia Earhart and Fred  Noonan on Saipan, but that has little or nothing to do with Mr. Crouch or American Heritage‘s aversion to the truth in the Earhart case.

As professional historians, it’s  impossible to imagine that Mr. Crouch and the editors at American Heritage are unaware of the mountains of evidence that place Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan on Saipan. Thousands, if not millions of murderers have gone to their executions based on the tiniest fraction of the witness testimony that’s been given by many that places Earhart and Noonan on Saipan. Even if you reject this overwhelming evidence, can you honestly claim that Mr. Crouch’s piece is a fair treatment of the massive evidence gathered over many decades by researchers such as Fred Goerner, Joe Gervais, Tom Devine, Vincent V. Loomis, Oliver Knaggs, Bill Prymak and others? Of course not. Something else is afoot here, driven by the same abject motivations that have informed the government-media establishment’s policy of complete denial of the truth in the Earhart disappearance from the beginning — protecting FDR’s reputation and their own longtime investments in the TIGHAR and crash-and-sank deceptions being prominent among them. Can anyone who is remotely informed doubt that the U.S. government and its media toadies, of which American Heritage is in the vanguard, are still engaged in the willful and purposeful suppression of the truth?

I dissected Mr. Crouch’s 2007 piece line by line in the final chapter of my book, and clearly exposed his assertions as pure U.S. government-issue poppycock. (Due to the media’s complete refusal to acknowledge the existence of my book, Mr. Crouch and American Heritage may also be unaware of  it. In that case I have attached the section of its last chapter that addresses Mr. Crouch’s 2007 article, as well as the following section, which addresses Gillespie’s fantasies). Now, in his 2012 repeat of the same nonsense, over several pages of propaganda, ostensibly covering the gamut of ideas about AE’s fate, Mr. Crouch could manage only the following about Saipan, far less than even in 2007, when he at least mentioned Devine’s work, although inaccurately and dismissively. Note the prominent use of the tainted word “conspiracy” in his reference:

“What are we to make of all the conspiracy theories? Is there a small flame of truth flickering somewhere beneath all that smoke? Most likely not. In three-quarters of a century of looking, no researcher has produced a shred of hard evidence to suggest that Earhart and Noonan were either spies or prisoners of the Japanese.”

Not “a shred,” insists Mr. Crouch, How can he so blithely ignore the hundreds of freely given and honest accounts of witnesses in the Marshalls and Saipan, GI veterans of Saipan, and three flag officer statements to Fred Goerner that Earhart died on Saipan, and much more? Quite easily, apparently, if he — and you — have an agenda of complete denial of the truth and suppression of the facts.

American Heritage needs to be reminded that their readership is not totally populated by morons and lemmings, so I hope this brief letter will at least accomplish that modest goal. I also know that American Heritage does not possess the integrity or intellectual honesty to publish this letter, but I’ll make sure I inform as many as I can about the continuing Earhart travesty and your role in perpetuating it.

Mike Campbell

Knoxville, Tenn.

www.Earharttruth.com

B’Man’s Sabbath Watch: The Religion Of Anti-Semitism

This is an amazing film. I am torn. Should I feel sorry that the Jewish children are raised to be fearful of something the film itself shows is largely bogus or should I be pissed that they are stupid enough to fall for the lies? Virtually every example of supposed anti-Semitism is so insanely untrue that any moron should be able to see through it. I recommend this with Seven Thumb’s Up (I’ll borrow 2.5 people to accomplish this). The “real Jew” tells like it is early on. Kudos to Granny.

What is Antisemitism today, two generations after the Holocaust? In his continuing exploration of modern Israeli life, director Yoav Shamir travels the world in search of the most modern manifestations of the “oldest hatred”, and comes up with some startling answers.
In this irreverent quest, he follows American Jewish leaders to the capitals of Europe, as they warn government officials of the growing threat of Antisemitism, and he tacks on to a class of Israeli high school students on a pilgrimage to Auschwitz.
On his way, Shamir meets controversial historian, Norman Finkelstein, who offers his views on the manner that Antisemitism is being used by the Jewish community and especially Israel for political gain. He also joins scholars, Stephen M. Walt and John J. Mearsheimer, while they give a lecture in Israel following the release of their book “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”, about the disproportional influence the Israel lobby in Washington enjoys.
Yoav visits Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial museum in Jerusalem, the must stop for all world leaders on their visits to Israel. While in Jerusalem, he drops by the house of his grandmother that offers her insight on the issue and declares that she is the “real Jew”.

Take Your Jab and Shove It: It Don’t Work Here Anymore

Image found at https://lucas2012infos.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/confirmed-flu-vaccine-increases-risk-of-serious-pandemic-flu-illness-19-september-2012/

Not that it ever did work. I have never had a flu shot (unless I got one in the Navy with all that other poison they put in us). They didn’t say one way or the other. Since I took over running my life, I refuse to get one. And thank goodness for that, since the damned things don’t work.

In a report issued in 2010 (that no one heard of), it is proven that not only do the vaccines NOT work, there has been a massive coverup of the manipulated data.

There Is No Value In Any Influenza Vaccine: The Cochrane Study

In the study(you must sign up to view it), we are shown that the majority of trials were inadequate and that the only ones

Image found at http://www.sott.net/article/251031-Flu-shot-increased-risk-of-infection-made-recipients-sicker-study-determines

showing any benefit were industry-funded. These industry-funded studies were the most likely to get published and the majority are hidden because they don’t toe the Vaccine Industry line.

So many of the studies were so flawed that only 50 were considered and 92 were thought to be bogus in one way or another. From the link above we can see that the authors found:

• Vaccines administered parenterally, that is, outside the digestive tract—which generally means by injection—reduced influenza-like symptoms by only 4%.
• They found no evidence that vaccination prevents viral transmission in healthy adults! (There goes the whole herd immunity argument!) This is particularly significant because, as they noted, inactivated vaccines are known to perform best in healthy adults.
• They also found no evidence that flu vaccines prevent complications, either. They attempted to ascertain the degree of complications, and though they did report on some, most of the studies simply did not address the issue or did so inadequately.

The authors also told us:

This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.

Do you think that corporations and the sick-care industry don’t have a stranglehold on science, always biased towards their profits? Do you believe that this is only a odd phenomena or that this mentality is prevalent throughout virtually any “industry” we have in America?

In other words, do you believe that profits drive everything, no matter the lie or misinformation or cost to you and your health?

Image found at: http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/44357-finnish-researchers-link-swine-flu-shot-to-narcolepsy-risk

Next: Do you still believe that these medical people actually care about your health or more about their cushy jobs and PROFIT beyond anything else?

Next time some ignorant assed Doctor tells you that they think you should get the jab, maybe you should point this study out to them and ask them if they truly care about your health (and maybe ask how much money they make from each shot… and how many perks do they get from the vaccine company).

As I previously reported, one Doctor I had (whom I no longer go to see) told me to my face that she doesn’t do ‘preventative medicine’. Well, except for the sign on her wall and the check-in window that persuades everyone to get the most recent flu shot.

Lying Bitch.

She is pursuing ‘preventative sickness’, in fact. THAT is what they do, either do to total ignorance or complicit, intentional harm.

h/t Jon Rappaport’s Blog

What Nutty Yahoo Really Meant and What He Should Have Said

That was what the nutbag really meant, but Greg Bacon at Goon Squad shows us what the maniac SHOULD have said:

“Today, my fellow members, I come to you with a heavy heart and broken soul, to ask for your forgiveness.

Since Israel was illegally created by a bribed and intimidated UN back in 1947, the Khazars and Commie Russian thugs that have moved into Palestine and stolen large chunks of the indigenous Palestinians land thru force; deception, thuggery and outright murder, all in an insane dream called Eretz Israel.

To that end of making an Israel that would stretch from the River Nile to the River Euphrates, Israel and it’s fellow Zionist travelers, along with sold-out politicians in the USA, Britain, France and Germany have been sowing misery, death and destroying around the world, then getting our Zionist owned MSM to blame our bloody acts on Muslims, vilifying Islam.

From our craven, sneaky unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty in our 1967 War of Aggression, to the FALSE FLAG/INSIDE JOB of 9/11, it was Israel behind those acts of treachery, that we then blamed on Islamic nations, like Iraq, so we could have our pit bull, the USA, go into those nations we castigated and have them destroyed,all to benefit Israel and Israel alone.

We stand guilty of a multitude of crimes, like wrecking the world’s economy after our 9/11 attacks against the USA. We had our Zionist friends at the Federal Reserve and those ‘Too Big to Fail’ Wall Street banks loot, pillage and plunder trillions of dollars from the world’s economy, because we knew that most Americans would be too damn scared of our fiction, al Qaeda, to notice that slippery set of fingers stealing their life savings.

We also stand guilty of numerous crimes against humanity, especially against the Palestinians in Gaza, were we have been operating the world’s largest concentration camp.

Another of our convenient scams is making people think 6 million Jews were killed by Germany during WWII, when anyone who investigates this matter can easily see it was the world’s biggest scam, designed to engender sympathy and money, lots and lots of money, to help Israel have a non-stop supply of wealth from other nations.

The list of our crimes against the world would fill a book, so I will conclude my ‘Mea Culpa’ by asking the world’s forgiveness and vow to NEVER AGAIN let this happen and to ensure we don’t remain the #1 threat to world peace, I am ordering that all our nuclear weapons be neutralized and that the enriched uranium and plutonium be delivered to Russia and the USA.

I am also ordering the dismantling of AIPAC, so that organization will stop running the USA and buying politicians.

I also ask that the International Criminal Court begin and immediate of our crimes, and to lock me and my cabinet members away, awaiting trial.

Thank you”

B’Man’s Hypocrite Watch: Iran versus Israel and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Know the hypocrisy regarding Iran’s agreement/participation in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and Israel’s downright denials.

Who is the problem here? Iran or Israel?

Sleeping With The Fishes: The Glenn Miller Story

You can use your imagination and see me playing the trumpet parts, including the 16 bar solo half way thru the song (I played it many, many times). I used to play much of Glenn Miller’s songs in a college jazz/lab band. His music was fantastic to listen to, but even more fun to play. What people don’t remember is that Glenn Miller was the ‘Elvis’ of his day. His band was one of the most popular to hit the scene.

Although I had studied him in the past, until recently, I had no idea that he disappeared under very strange circumstances reminiscent of Amelia Earhart’s disappearance, meaning that it was related to WWII and the official story smells like BS.

Lt Col Hunton Downs penned a book on the subject called, “THE GLENN MILLER CONSPIRACY: THE SHOCKING STORY OF HOW HE DIED AND WHY”. Various reviews of this book travel the gambit of theories, but the official one seems unlikely, which is that he took off in a single engine plane and crashed into the English Sound and nobody really cared enough to immediately go look. He, the two with him, nor the plane, were ever seen again. Obviously, this is BS, because Miller was extremely popular, especially since he had joined the Air Force (as a Major) to fight in WWII (making him a hero in many circles), and such an event would be closely monitored by the public. Just like Elvis’ death was covered by media to no end, so should have Miller’s (but you tell me if you even knew HOW he died).

One review basically is cover for the official story, because it tries to make light all the evidence Col Downs presents. And you can only imagine “why” by noticing the site.

Mr Downs Speaks For Himself

Theories abound about what really happened to swing era icon Glenn Miller. The facts, as presented don’t add up, reports went missing and a variety of stories have surfaced. Now, award winning journalist Hunton Downs, Lt. Col, US Army, Ret., who has spent more than 60 years putting together pieces of this puzzle, offers the most definitive – and fascinating – account of this mysterious disappearance.

According to Col Downs, Major Miller was sent to Germany by Generals Bradley and Eisenhower for a secret meeting with Von Rundstedt to end the war sooner (this scheme sounds quite fishy to me), but was betrayed by an allied spy. Miller, being a German speaker, was doing propaganda radio for German officers and civilians (he was hugely popular in Germany before the war, too), trying to convince them to leave the Nazis and/or call for an overthrow of the Nazi regime.Supposedly, Maj Miller was beaten severely, loaded up in a plane and was taken to Paris and dumped at a Prostitution house where some MP’s found him.

Ron Mott’s critique of the book also contains another version, saying that Miller was found in the arms of a French woman and her husband killed him. Supposedly, the grave site that is supposed to entomb Miller is empty.

Another article by Glenn MacDonald at MilitaryCorruption. com delves a but deeper and is worth a read.

The heroic “myth” that Miller’s plane went down in bad weather in the English Channel in December of that fateful year, was born of wartime necessity. The aircraft—a single-engine Norseman—was never found, and although numerous theories have been offered as to what really happened to Alton G. Miller, the epitome of Middle America and “musical magic” of that time, Downs has the most documented findings.

One of the first clues that the “official version” of Miller’s death was wrong—dramatically portrayed by Jimmy Stewart in the great 1950′s movie “The Glenn Miller Story”—was the MACR (Missing Air Crew Report) on file at Maxwell AFB in Alabama since the end of World War II.

Dipping into Scotland Yard, RAF records in England (the “Ansell Report”) and The Imperial War Museum in London, as well as extremely valuable investigative documents discovered by the late Miller researcher Wilbur Wright, Downs discovered the “adjutant’s signature” on the “official” form had been “falsified,” and Miller’s name had been “added to the passenger list” (different typewriters had been used).

“The falsifiers had even gotten destinations wrong, trying to fit in pre-conceived plans of what Supreme Headquarters (Gen. Eisenhower) claimed had taken place,” Downs said.

Please read the entire thing.

Another article at “The Straight Dope” suggests that Miller had a heart attack while messing with the French woman and the Air Force felt it needed to cover that up:

But in 1997, German journalist Udo Ulfkotte came up with another explanation. According to the German tabloid Bild, Ulfkotte had been researching American and German intelligence efforts during the war for a book on German intelligence agencies. Ulfkotte claimed that while going over documents he had obtained from the American government under the Freedom of Information Act, he found evidence that Miller had actually arrived safely in Paris on the 14th, but had a heart attack on the 15th while consorting with a French prostitute, and that the American military had covered up the episode.

A shocking revelation if true. But Ulfkotte later claimed he’d been misquoted. He’d never actually found U.S. documents showing that Miller had died in a whorehouse, he said; rather, he’d been told this story by German intelligence specialists in an off-the-record conversation. So no papers, no proof, just a few old spies spinning stories.

The Bild story also claimed that British diver Clive Ward found the remains of Miller’s Norseman plane off the coast of France in 1985, but that there was no damage and no signs of human remains. Which invites a few questions: if Miller’s death had been faked, and the military had placed the plane there in order to bolster  its story about the “real” cause of Miller’s death, then why didn’t they bother making it look like a wreck? And why leave it sitting there for forty years rather than “find” it after the “crash”? And since Ward stated that there was no registration number on the craft he found, how did he know it was Miller’s plane?

Then there’s the matter of Flight Officer John Morgan and Lt. Col. Norman F. Baessell, who allegedly accompanied Miller on his last flight. What happened to them? Were they just servicemen who had died in the same timeframe and the military was lucky that one of them was a pilot?

Ulfkotte’s tale, if true, would involve a massive conspiracy by a military that was both stunningly incompetent and stunningly lucky.  They found a pilot whose death hadn’t been noted by others; they deposited a plane in the English Channel to act as “evidence” without thinking to damage it or place dead bodies (such as poor F/O John Morgan) in it, but that didn’t matter because it wasn’t found for another forty years; they managed to hush up absolutely everyone involved, from Miller’s manager (who was bumped off the fateful flight so that Miller could take it) to Miller’s band (if Miller had been in Paris, they would have known about it) to everyone who had seen Miller when he left the base (there’s at least one eyewitness who states that Miller left on the flight that crashed) to everyone in the brothel where Miller died to every MP involved in removing his body and guarding the scene. Then, having hushed everyone up, they either wrote it all down for later generations to discover, or at the very least leaked it to some German intelligence agents. Somehow, I doubt it.

For another viewpoint, watch Leonard Nimoy’s episode about it on “In Search Of…”, that is worth viewing.

As I told someone this morning, American History has ALWAYS been tainted. It wasn’t wonderful truths before WWII and it sure as hell isn’t anything but lies and misinformation now. Why wouldn’t the “official story” regarding Miller be any different that the lies surrounding the death of Earhart, James Forrestal, or JFK for that matter?

Maybe Major Miller had found out certain details about the war, such as the fact that Hitler never wanted war and tried everything in his power to NOT go to war, but was forced into it by the leaders of America and England (and the monstrous Poles and Soviets). Perhaps he did meet with the Germans, trying to shorten the war, only to have been killed by our folks because the Germans would have easily stopped the war (and the last thing that the leaders wanted was the war to stop).

The issues about a bomb accidentally dropping on them from an allied bomber, causing them to go down or the thing about French whores just don’t cut the mustard with me.

I have asked some of my most trustworthy sources the following (and ask the same of you): What do you know about this? Do you know anyone that has approached this subject?

911: Who, What, Why, and How???

What they expect us to believe:

Paul Craig Roberts tells us:

One is that according to the official story, a handful of Arabs, mainly Saudi Arabians, operating independently of any government and competent intelligence service, men without James Bond and V for Vendetta capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all security agencies of America’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad. Not only did the entire intelligence forces of the Western world fail, but on the morning of the attack the entire apparatus of the National Security State simultaneously failed. Airport security failed four times in one hour. NORAD failed. Air Traffic Control failed. The US Air Force failed. The National Security Council failed. Dick Cheney failed. Absolutely nothing worked. The world’s only superpower was helpless at the humiliating mercy of a few undistinguished Arabs.

It is hard to image a more far-fetched story–except for the second thing you need to know: The humiliating failure of US National Security did not result in immediate demands from the President of the United States, from Congress, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from the media for an investigation of how such improbable total failure could have occurred. No one was held accountable for the greatest failure of national security in world history. Instead, the White House dragged its feet for a year resisting any investigation until the persistent demands from 9/11 families for accountability forced President George W. Bush to appoint a political commission, devoid of any experts, to hold a pretend investigation.

Who REALLY did it:

Even the earliest media reports knew, but have been removed since:

Even the Devil, himself, (plus the devil’s relatives) was complicit.

Why?

Several simultaneous reasons

Trauma-based Mind-control

John Friend explains that one purpose is to gain control of the world’s minds by inflicting trauma on a mass scale, in order to bring us around to supporting the Empire’s goals (also know as Zionism’s goals):

There is no doubt that 9/11 was a trauma-based mind control operation on a societal scale. Think about it: (fake) images of “hijacked” airliners full of innocent Americans smashing into the iconic World Trade Center towers in New York City were shown repeatedly on television, over and over again, to a traumatized public. Media personalities, politicians, and others provided emotional (scripted) commentary of the day’s events, immediately identifying the culprits patsies: Osama bin Laden, Muslim extremists, and that evil boogey-man,”al-Qaeda”. World Trade Center “victims” were shown jumping out of the buildings due to the fires, all shown on television to a terrified and vulnerable audience. “Victim” family members stepped forward to explain the alleged phone calls made by various “victims” on the hijacked airliners. 9/11 was a day full of trauma, both physical and psychological. We know individuals and societies are more easily controlled and manipulated when they are in a traumatized state.

Believe it or not, the events of 9/11 appear to have been a completely scripted and staged psychological operation, involving fake videos, manufactured “victims”, projected images, fabricated evidence, and scripted witnesses, media personalities, and “actors”…

… 9/11 was a PSYOP not only on the American public, but the entire world.  Israel and international Jewry, along with their goyim puppets in the Jew-run United States government, perpetrated this massive fraud against the world 11 years ago today in order to demonize Islam, launch the fraudulent “Global War on Terror” against Israel’s Muslim enemies in the Middle East, and initiate their Zionist-run police state tyranny in the United States and other Western countries.  It is past time for the American public to wake up from this trauma-based mind control operation and recognize that Israel was behind 9/11, not Osama bin Laden and “Muslim extremists”.  Anyone saying anything to the contrary is working for the enemy, knowingly or unknowingly. All politicians and media personalities covering up this massive fraud, which has led to the murder and destruction of millions around the world, is a traitor. Those refusing to recognize 9/11 for what is really was and remains are as guilty as the Jews who planned, executed, and benefitted from it, period.

Again, Mr Roberts clues us in to at least one aspect of “why”:

The circumstantial evidence is that these were orchestrated events designed to keep fear alive, to create new intrusive powers for a new over-arching federal policy agency, to accustom US citizens to intrusive searches and a police force to conducting them, and to sell expensive porno-scanners and now more advanced devices to the Transportation Safety Administration. Apparently, this expensive collection of high-tech gadgetry is insufficient to protect us from terrorists, and in August 2012 the Department of Homeland Security put in an order for 750 million rounds of ammunition, enough to shoot every person in the US 2.5 times.