On The Trail Of The [Cutouts] Who [Set Up] The 9/11 [Patsies], Part 2: No Vortex

A twin-engine plane leaves a
double vortex in its wake.

[Previous: Part 1: 28 Pages]

[UPDATED; see below]

In Part 1 we were discussing the December 9 piece called "9/11 Link To Saudi Arabia Is Topic Of 28 Redacted Pages In Government Report; Congressmen Push For Release" by Jamie Reno at International Business Times [or here]. In that article, Reno quotes Sharon Premoli, "a 9/11 survivor who was on the North Tower's 80th floor when the plane hit," as saying

"It makes me angry that I still don’t know what happened or who was supporting these hijackers."

There are many people who are angry because they still don't know what happened that day, some despite extensive personal efforts to find the truth of the matter. None of this is their fault. We've been hearing lies about these attacks ever since the day they happened. But hardly ever have we heard anything that could possibly be true.

So Sharon Premoli is quite correct to say, "I still don’t know what happened." In my view, her statement shows admirable courage and integrity. But, as I see it, to go on and talk about the "hijackers" is premature and speculative, irresponsible at best. I am becoming more and more convinced that all such talk is "barking up the wrong tree" in its entirety.

Dimitri Kalezov, in his remarkable book "9/11thology," dismisses the story that "hijacked planes crashed into the towers" very convincingly. If I may rephrase some of his strongest arguments:

But the fireball from the South Tower
just hung in the air.

[1] Eight of the 19 alleged "suicide hijackers" were found to be alive after the attack. They weren't even dragged from the rubble. They were already in foreign countries. Some claimed that their passports had been stolen. But clearly, if they had hijacked airplanes and crashed them into buildings in dramatic suicide attacks, they could not have been found alive later.

[2] Some of the "live video" supposedly depicting an airplane approaching and crashing into the South Tower has been shown to be fabricated (and the same can be said of some of the later video). Kalezov credits Ace Baker for his analysis, which proves beyond any doubt that the video is bogus. [For one example, see this video.] Clearly, if the crashes had been genuine, there would be no bogus video of the event.

[3] A turbofan engine spins at up to 30,000 RPM, creating a powerful vortex. So a twin-engine plane with turbofan engines leaves a double vortex in its wake. But the fireball from the South Tower, which we all saw many times, and which was allegedly caused by an airplane hitting the tower at 590 MPH, showed no disturbance in the air. As we could clearly see, the fireball just hung there. It didn't swirl or twist at all. The smoke from the burning North Tower was not affected in any way by the approach of the plane that supposedly hit the South Tower. So the air around both towers must have been quite still at the time. And therefore no turbofan-driven airplane could have been flying in the vicinity, in the seconds before the explosion. [See this video.]

The steel perimeter columns had walls two
inches thick, and aluminum cannot cut steel.

[4] The twin towers were built mostly of steel and concrete. Their frames were like cages; each face was a grid made of steel box girders with walls two inches thick. The vertical members of this grid were spaced only three feet apart. So for an airplane, which is essentially a hollow aluminum tube, to have burst into the building on impact, it would have had to cut through dozens of these girders, instantly and simultaneously.

But the "plane" that allegedly hit the North Tower supposedly entered the building "intact!" And that's not possible, because in any collision between a softer material and a harder one, the softer material suffers most, if not all, of the damage. Or, as Kalezov puts it,

aluminum projectiles can not penetrate steel targets even in theory

Here's an experiment you can try at home. Open a can of pop and drink the pop. Now throw the can at the door of a car, and observe how the can reacts on impact. Throw it as hard as you want; shoot it with a hockey stick; hit it with a baseball bat; fire it out of a cannon if you like; and pay attention to the results. In particular, does the can [a] bounce off the car door and land on the ground, somewhat deformed? Or does it [b] penetrate the car door and wind up inside the car? If you said [b], then commercial airplanes could possibly have pierced the frames of the World Trade Center towers. Otherwise not.

Therefore the planes
that crashed into the WTC
must have been digital.

If you said [a], the planes that crashed into the WTC were digital -- pixels on a screen and nothing more. This could be why so many of the people who supposedly hijacked those planes were still alive after the fact; maybe they were not killed in the collisions because there were no collisions. Maybe their role was not to hijack any planes, nor to destroy any buildings, but simply to take the blame.

If you are not now and have never been a "no-planer," this line of reasoning may cause you considerable discomfort. That's not your fault. You've been hearing lies about 9/11 ever since it happened. But if you fire enough pop cans at your car, you may find the situation somewhat easier to accept.

This line of reasoning is uncomfortable for me because it is so obvious! Of course aluminum cannot cut steel. It never has; it never will; and I should have been able to figure this out, twelve years ago, all by myself and without any help from Dimitri Kalezov.

And if the so-called "hijackers" were merely patsies, then in the days before 9/11, they may not have known anything at all about the attacks for which they were about to be blamed. So the search for those who helped them -- whoever they were, and whatever they thought they were doing -- takes on a much different aspect. But it is still an important search.

Clearly, anyone who gave the patsies support, and/or instructions, is implicated in the 9/11 attacks -- whatever they were. And by the same logic that indicates the patsies may have been unaware of the plan of attack, those who supported them may have had no knowledge of it themselves, aside from the specific tasks they were assigned to perform.

Any serious and honest investigation would concern itself with questions such as who assigned these tasks. It would not be satisfied with explanations that the individuals involved had no knowledge of the plan. And yet this appears to have happened.

[UPDATE: Most of what I wrote in this post has been challenged. And it could be wrong. I've been wrong before. For the challenge to this post, see this comment thread. And if you're curious, I was wrong about this story, at least for a while.]

[Next: Part 3: The Lawsuit]

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

On The Trail Of The [Cutouts] Who [Set Up] The 9/11 [Patsies], Part 1: 28 Pages

Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah
[holding hands] with
George W. Bush

There's been a bit of a buzz building on Capitol Hill recently over a report issued back in 2002 concerning an investigation into 9/11. If you haven't read anything about it lately, it's probably not your fault. With very few exceptions, the report in question has not been mentioned in the mainstream news for more than ten years.

As you may vaguely remember, in the early days after 9/11, former Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) chaired a Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry into the activites of certain intelligence agencies as they pertained to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Graham's inquiry resulted in an 800-page report, of which then-president George W. Bush held back 28 pages, claiming that the information they contained would be detrimental to national security. According to hints from sources who have read the report, the redacted pages concern a number of high-ranking Saudis who provided financial and other assistance to some of the "hijackers."

The Hill is slightly abuzz over this issue because earlier this year, representatives Walter B. Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-MA) were allowed to read the 28 redacted pages, and earlier this month they introduced a resolution urging president Obama to release them to the public.

I have been reading about this sporadically from a very small variety of sources, beginning with Jamie Reno's December 9 article at International Business Times [or here], which says, among other things,

Most of the allegations of links between the Saudi government and the 9/11 hijackers revolve around two enigmatic Saudi men who lived in San Diego: Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Basnan, both of whom have long since left the United States.

In early 2000, al-Bayoumi, who had previously worked for the Saudi government in civil aviation (a part of the Saudi defense department), invited two of the hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, to San Diego from Los Angeles. He told authorities he met the two men by chance when he sat next to them at a restaurant.

Newsweek reported in 2002 that al-Bayoumi’s invitation was extended on the same day that he visited the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles for a private meeting.

Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan

Newsweek's 2002 report was called "The Saudi Money Trail" and you can read it at the Newsweek site [or here]. Other early reports worth reading include "Bush Won't Reveal Saudi 9/11 Info" from Lauren Johnston of AP via CBS [or here] and "Report on 9/11 Suggests a Role By Saudi Spies" by James Risen and David Johnston in the New York Times [or here]

Jamie Reno continues:

Al-Bayoumi arranged for the two future hijackers to live in an apartment and paid $1,500 to cover their first two months of rent. Al-Bayoumi was briefly interviewed in Britain but was never brought back to the United States for questioning.

As for Basnan, Newsweek reported that he received monthly checks for several years totaling as much as $73,000 from the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar, and his wife, Princess Haifa Faisal. Although the checks were sent to pay for thyroid surgery for Basnan’s wife, Majeda Dweikat, Dweikat signed many of the checks over to al-Bayoumi’s wife, Manal Bajadr. This money allegedly made its way into the hands of hijackers, according to the 9/11 report.

Despite all this, Basnan was ultimately allowed to return to Saudi Arabia, and Dweikat was deported to Jordan.

Sources and numerous press reports also suggest that the 28 pages include more information about Abdussattar Shaikh, an FBI asset in San Diego who Newsweek reported was friends with al-Bayoumi and invited two of the San Diego-based hijackers to live in his house.

Shaikh was not allowed by the FBI or the Bush administration to testify before the 9/11 Commission or the JICI.

Reno also says:

Jones insists that releasing the 28 secret pages would not violate national security.

This tells me that Walter B. Jones does not understand what "national security" means. But that's probably not his fault. We've been hearing lies about "national security" ever since we were born.

We tend to think of "national security" as something involving the safety and security of the nation and its people -- ordinary people such as you and me and our families. And this is what our political system would like us to believe -- not because it's true, only because it makes us easier to manipulate. As it is actually used, "national security" refers to the survival and continuing tenure in office of those who use the term to justify their actions. More broadly, it also refers to the survival and continuing (or increasing!) wealth, status and privilege of those who currently enjoy such things.

As we have known for a long time, George W. Bush and his administration resisted every attempt to investigate 9/11, except for the belated whitewash which they felt they could control. And they used "national security" to prevent the release, not only of the infamous "28 pages" but of a wide variety of other information.

It doesn't take much guesswork to figure out why they did this. Clearly the information they censored must have threatened them, their position, and their supporters. They may no longer have their positions, but surely their supporters retain a stake in the matter. And unless I am badly misreading the situation, the Obama administration has far greater incentive to keep the 28 pages secret than to release them. But we shall see what happens. Unless we don't.

[Next: Part 2: No Vortex]

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Big Surprise: US Intel Knew Syrian Rebels Could Produce Sarin; Obama Lied About It Trying To Justify Another War

Seymour Hersh

Seymour Hersh has reported that US intelligence agencies knew the opposition forces in Syria were able to produce sarin. Some of us may recall our noble leaders asserting quite the opposite, and using said assertion to attempt to justify waging overt war against Syria.

Hersh proves that they deliberately lied. Is anyone surprised by this revelation?

Hersh usually writes for the New Yorker. But his new article, "Whose sarin?" is published online-only by the London Review of Books.

Some of us may recall being told we have a free press. Is anyone surprised that the New Yorker has not published Hersh's new article?

Hersh reports:

A former senior intelligence official ... said there was immense frustration inside the military and intelligence bureaucracy: ‘The guys are throwing their hands in the air and saying, “How can we help this guy” – Obama – “when he and his cronies in the White House make up the intelligence as they go along?”’

So I have to ask: Is anyone surprised that they do this? How can any "senior intelligence official" NOT know that they do this? It's been happening for a long time, hasn't it?

The same "former senior intelligence official" told Hersh that the "distortion" of the intelligence

reminded him of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, when the Johnson administration reversed the sequence of National Security Agency intercepts to justify one of the early bombings of North Vietnam.

So he has noticed. But apparently he hasn't caught on yet. And this is a "former senior intelligence official." How much more experience does one need to start understanding what's happening here?

Hersh mentions in closing that the agreement which will see Syria get rid of its chemical weapons will also leave the rebels in possession of all the ingredients they'd need to make more sarin. So who's kidding whom here? And are we surprised?

All of this is very disturbing. But it's hardly surprising. Is it?

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Lessons We Learn From Our Children: A Five-Legged Stool And A Potato Of Milk

My wife and I have been getting some interesting lessons from our children, two of which stand out as especially relevant. Working together, they form a synergy that explains far too much about the current political situation. And even though they're of no importance in and of themselves, it still might be worthwhile to tell you about them.

When our daughter was learning the alphabet, we gave her a DVD set called "40 Years of Sunny Days: The Best of Sesame Street." It's an excellent compilation of skits, songs (this is my favorite), and art. We had fun watching it with her, she had fun watching it herself, and she learned the alphabet and much more. But some of what she learned was wrong!

One of the older skits was done in simple drawings with a voice track. It shows a mother sending her daughter to the store for "a loaf of bread, a container of milk, and a stick of butter." The daughter recites the list over and over on her way to the store, and although she suffers a momentary lapse once inside, she brings home the right things.

Our daughter loved that skit, but she didn't understand it. We know this because she would walk around the house saying, "a loaf of bread, a potato of milk, and a stick of butter."

Her older brothers challenged her many times, asking questions such as, "How could you have a potato of milk?" and "A potato of milk? What does that even mean?" And every time, she gave them the same response: "a loaf of bread, a potato of milk, and a stick of butter."

Stubborn? Oh my goodness. Where does she get that from?

Meanwhile, our eldest son was involved in a group project in his science class. The assignment was to design and build a stool which would hold as much weight as possible. The teacher offered to provide all the materials, and our son suggested a hollow concrete cube.

It would not have been pretty, but it would have supported everything the class could stack on it. On the other hand, there were three people in the group, and he was the only one who liked his idea. The other two wanted to blow up a balloon, cover it with papier-mâché, and paint it blue with green stripes. So that's what they did.

They made legs out of empty pop cans, also covered in papier-mâché, also painted blue with green stripes, and they papered the legs to the balloon in such odd places that the stool fell over, even without any weight on it. So they added a fifth leg. Then the smallest girl in the class sat on it for about three seconds, and it didn't collapse. So they declared their experiment finished and their stool a success. Our son was mortified.

But this is how democracy works, kids. Two clowns with a bad idea will overrule one serious person with a good idea, every time. That's on a small scale. On a larger scale, the ratio gets worse. N+1 clowns who know nothing will overrule N serious, well-informed people, every time. So 51% is a landslide. 50.1% is a mandate. And so on.

And that's a problem. Meanwhile, most of the people -- at least, most of the people I know -- seem quite content to absorb whatever they hear. If they hear something often enough, and nothing to the contrary, they believe it -- even if it's not supported by any credible evidence, even if it's not remotely plausible, even if the very words don't make any sense at all. And when they're challenged, they'll stick by their nonsense, no matter what. That's another problem.

It's not as if honest people control the voting machines or anything. And it's not as if we control the media either. We don't even have a presence in it. So if there were no volunteer truth-seekers, everyone would hear the same lies all day long, day after day. And nobody would ever hear anything different. Then they wouldn't even need to rig the elections.

It's good to be blogging again. 

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Multiple Blogs Rolling

Not logs! I said, "blogs."

As long-time readers are aware, I have been hampered by multiple injuries for several years and my blogs have all been dormant (or mostly dormant) for a long time. However, I am happy to report that in the past month or so, I have been healthy enough to get multiple blogs rolling simultaneously. In particular ...

• Winter Parking

is rolling again, archiving news stories of interest. The newest post there is a transcript an interview from Voice Of Russia with

• Len Bracken about 9/11. 

He might not be right about everything that he says -- who is? -- but a lot of what he says is interesting ... to me, anyway.

The archiving of news stories has been much more labor-intensive at

• The Spy Who Knew Too Much

where I collect articles relevant to the death of Gareth Williams. At TSWKTM there are more than 100 new posts, most pertaining to Scotland Yard's announcement last month that the police now view his death as a probable accident. Some of the news articles mirrored here have been taken down from the websites on which they were originally published. Why? Hmm! Interesting...

I have also set up a new site called

• Tweets from the Inquest into the Death of Gareth Williams

which hosts a collection of tweets sent by five reporters during the eight days of the inquest in late April and early May of 2012. There's more detail here than anywhere else on the net, as far as I know. Not for everyone, surely, but vital stuff nonetheless. I am still working on the cross-reference, so it will be more useful to me as I work on

• Sherlock Holmes And The Alderney Street Mystery

which explores the Gareth Williams case and the stories printed about it (under the guise of fiction). SHATASM has four new installments, starting with

• Chapter 118: Toxicology: Negative.

And finally, at my music blog

• Cold Tunes

there are six new posts:

• Burn by Bruce Cockburn; 
• brilliant renditions of Pachelbel's Canon in D from Buddy Emmons (on pedal steel guitar) and The Piano Guys (on four cellos);
• You Can't Hurry Love, a big hit for the Supremes in 1966, which has been covered once or twice since;
• Roxy Music's She Sells, featuring keyboardist/violinist/composer Eddie Jobson;
• Big Day, by Roxy guitarist Phil Manzanera, with ex-Roxy studio wizard Brian Eno; and
• Audrey Assad's Winter Snow, a gorgeous, slow, jazzy, song of Christmas.

These are the first new postings at Cold Tunes in five years, and I must say, it's fun to be able to do this again. While I've been working on Cold Tunes, I have noticed that some of the old videos are no longer available, and I have been putting up replacements if I could find them. So a couple of posts which have been broken for a long time are now functional again. In particular, if you haven't heard

• Tommy Bolin's Sweet Burgundy, or 
• Lowell George singing Honest Man,

this would be a good time to do so.  And whether you've already seen it or not,

• With A Little Help From My Fred

is once again worth a visit.

I am working on research for a new post or two for "my main blog" as well, and I hope this will conclude my leave of absence.

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Distraction 101: Why Are The Prog-Blogs Silent On Gaza? Because That Is Their Job!

Another Israeli attack on Gaza.
"Progressive" bloggers got nothing to say.

With "the American-armed, American-backed Israeli military [...] busily raining death into the cramped and crowded concentration camp of Gaza," I find it difficult to think clearly, let alone write clearly. The barbarity of the Israeli operation, no doubt carefully planned long ago, fills me with horror, rage, and grief -- and so too do the so-called "justifications" put forth by the so-called "analysts" who populate our so-called "news media." Even were I not hampered by physical injuries, I would find it very difficult to write at this time.

And yet, not writing at this time would be even more difficult, and writing about anything except the Israeli assault on Gaza would be almost inconceivable.

But the key word is "almost," and the crucial issue is context. In other words: I am an independent blogger with a small readership and no outside support. Thus, I am free (some would say "bound") to write what I think. But such was not always the case. Before I became an independent blogger with a small readership, I was a frequent and heavy contributor (and occasionally even the guest host) at a blog with a large readership, and things were very different.

Chris Floyd's latest post, "Blogging and Nothingness: Progressives Turn Their Gaze from Gaza," points out that the "leading" "progressive" blogs -- Digby, Eschaton, and Kos, among others -- have had nothing to say about current round of crimes being committed against the Palestinians, and against all humanity, by the Israeli "defense force." Certainly they are not about to call these crimes by their proper names, nor to admit that none of them would be possible without the support that flows to Israel from the United States.

As I came to see quite clearly when I was about to become an independent blogger, the big, so-called "progressive" bloggers are not interested in digging up and exposing any of the most important truths of our time, including but not limited to: the truth about 9/11, the long-standing, bi-partisan American plan to refashion the Middle East through escalating violence, Israel's outrageous use of military force against defenseless civilians, and the fact that this would not be possible without unstinting American support on numerous levels. (Perhaps you see these as multiple aspects of the same issue, in which case I beg your forgiveness for listing them separately.)

Occasionally I see the assertion made that the "leading" "progressive" bloggers are not shining bright lights on such harsh truths because they are afraid of being called "anti-Semitic." In my opinion, nothing could be further than the truth. The "leading" "progressive" bloggers are mostly interested in preventing such truths from coming to light, because they are anti-Semitic.

Let us speak plainly. Palestinians are Semites. Many Israelis, who came to Israel from Europe, are not. But Israel uses the term "anti-Semitic" to smear anyone who criticizes Israeli policies. Therefore, you will be called "anti-Semitic" if you oppose unwarranted violence against the Semitic people. But in fact it is Israeli policies, and Israeli supporters, which are truly "anti-Semitic."

This is extremely twisted "logic," using the ethnic identity of the victims to shield the perpetrators. But it is entirely typical -- the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a minefield, strewn with words and phrases whose apparent meanings and real meanings are radically different.

In my view, the "leading" "progressive" bloggers shy away from the minefield not because it's complicated -- it's really not very complicated at all -- but because that is their job. Their main purpose is to capture and nullify any potential opposition. They are remarkably successful at it, and heavily supported for doing it so well.

And therefore it is left to the "little guys" -- Chris Floyd and others -- to clear away the mines and tell the horrible truths, even though this guarantees that they will always be independent bloggers with small readerships.

As for the "leading" "progressive" blogs -- Digby, Eschaton, and Kos, among others -- I never expect them to say anything valuable about anything of importance. My expectations have rarely been disappointed.

Meanwhile, death and destruction continue to fall upon the people who are trapped in the Israeli vice. Israeli bombs continue to tear apart homes and kill whole families, while Israeli shills continue to claim that Israel never attacks civilians. And Barack Obama maintains that "Israel has the right to defend itself."

This so-called "right of self-defense" stems from Israel's so-called "right to exist." I wouldn't wait for any "leading" "progressive" blogger to explain how bogus all this is, or to point out that states exist by force of arms alone, not by right but by might. No coercive state has any right to exist whatsoever -- not Israel, not the USA, none of the others. States exist because -- and only for so long as -- none of their opponents can overcome their power.

If this obvious truth is invisible to the "leading" "progressive" bloggers, then maybe they are not so "progressive" after all ... which would explain why they are "leading."

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

What Are They Afraid Of? Values Whose Time Has Come

Cynthia McKinney

The United States of America, I was taught as a youngster, is the greatest country on Earth, precisely because of its freedom of speech. Everyone in America is free to think whatever thoughts he wishes, and to speak his mind in public. And no one is persecuted for saying what he thinks.

Unfortunately, this is not now and has never been true. But it sets a backdrop against which anyone who claims to have been persecuted for political reasons is fighting an uphill battle. "But we don't do that here!" and so on.

Former Congressperson Cynthia McKinney could tell us something about political persecution. She was run out of office for asking all the wrong questions, and for failing to toe the correct lines. But she keeps asking the wrong questions and stepping on those lines all the same. Thus she finds herself at the forefront of some very touchy issues, especially including the outrageous idea of American support for the Palestinians. For that reason, if no other, she's not very popular among those with the coercive forces of the modern police state at their disposal.

McKinney has never wanted to talk about being persecuted for political reasons, but after surviving twenty years of systematic battering, she's changing direction on that question. In an Open Letter released last weekend, she writes:

I am currently conducting research in order to write a paper on the violent repression carried out by individuals acting on behalf of the United States government against certain political actors of the 1960s and early 1970s. It was during this research that I came across the notion of “soft repression” and immediately recognized myself in what I was reading. I said to myself as I read, “Hey, that’s me.” So, I decided to write this Open Letter in order to blow the cover off a secret that I have walked with for years.

Among other things, McKinney says:

I have lived with this “soft repression” since, as a Member of Congress-elect in 1992, I refused to sign the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) pledge of support for Israel.

and

“Soft repression” tactics include ridicule, stigma, and silencing. I have experienced and continue to experience each one of these types of targeting. I routinely receive hate mail and withstand very active organized attempts to ridicule, stigmatize, and eventually silence me. I routinely experience strange occurrences with my computer (typing by itself) and telephone (answered by someone before it even rings on my end), and more. Strange things happen to my friends and to the friends of my friends (like police stops for nothing, and worse, calls to remote immigrant acquaintances asking for information about me).

and

Not too long ago, I received a call from a lawyer with the ACLU who tracks politically-inspired civil liberties violations and he told me that my name came up in a Texas Fusion Center of the Department of Homeland Security document as someone, associating with former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and traveling to Lebanon with him, who should be surveilled for any attempts engaged in by me to push Sharia law for the U.S. It’s ludicrous, I know. It’s even more ludicrous that U.S. tax dollars are being spent to surveil people for this stupidity. But there it is.

and

Upon my return to the U.S. from Cape Town, South Africa at which the Russell Tribunal found that Israel practices its own unique form of apartheid, I was notified by my local FBI office that I was [the] subject of a terroristic threat, along with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama, by some poor hillbillies from the north Georgia mountains. The FBI offered to protect me from any other hillbillies who might get funny ideas.

Well, I’ve been through this before with the FBI, when a journalist called for my lynching on my way to vote. My alarmed Congressional staff alerted the FBI -- only for us all to learn, years later, that this particular “journalist” was on the FBI payroll at the time that he made those reprehensible remarks.

and

What could they possibly be afraid of?

I will answer my own question: values whose time has come—truth, justice, peace, and dignity. Not only for the elite few, but also for the rest of us: everybody’s truth and everybody’s dignity.

and

I will begin to document and make public what has heretofore been covert activity carried out by bullies who pick on the weak.

From where I stand, this is a very welcome development. We've had too few of those lately. We should all know about these covert activities. We should know about all activities carried out by our government, at our expense, against our fellow citizens -- especially our dissident political leaders.

Since I am on McKinney's mailing list, I received a copy of the Open Letter by email. To make it more widely available, I have posted it in full on my blog-away-from-blog, Winter Parking. I hope you will read the whole thing, and I will try to keep you posted on further developments.

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Judge Awards $6 Billion In Damages In Frivolous 9/11 Lawsuit

A judge in New York has awarded more than $6 billion in damages to relatives of 47 people who died in the false-flag attacks of 9/11.

These damages are to be paid by a group of defendants -- both organizations and individuals -- who have never been convicted of the crime in any legitimate court of law. The defendants include the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and Ayatollah Khamenei personally, as well as Osama bin Laden, al-Q'aeda, the Taliban, and Hezbollah.

It is interesting to try to imagine conditions under which this $6 billion might be considered collectible. It is also interesting to try to imagine what might have happened had the 9/11 attacks been subject to a thorough and independent investigation, had the perpetrators been positively identified by forensic analysis rather than simply slandered by the US government and media, and/or had the official story actually been true.

But then again, for any story to be true, it must be plausible. And this one is not. Therefore it is sobering to see how deeply the bizarre fictions of 9/11 have embedded themselves into our national mythology, not to mention our institutions of "government" and "justice."

If $6 billion seems like a lot of money, don't even think about how much has been spent prosecuting the so-called "Global War On Terror," all of which depends on an "investigation" in which the two prime suspects were allowed to specify the conditions under which they would "testify" -- together, behind closed doors, not under oath, and with no one allowed to keep notes of their "testimony."

If the suspects in any other case of murder, let alone the mass-murder of thousands of people, tried to establish the conditions under which they could be investigated, well, the idea is so absurd that it's not even worth thinking about!

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Living Under Drones and Living Under Delusions: Reflections on Faith, Evidence, Socks, and America's War against Pakistan

Would you believe me?

What would you think if I told you I was wearing red and blue striped knee-socks? Would you believe me?

If you did, it would be a matter of faith, for I would have merely made the claim, without showing you any evidence to support it. Your only possible rational reason for believing what I said about my socks would be a strong, underlying belief that I would never lie to you about such a thing.

But let us suppose, for the sake of discussion, that you had such an underlying belief, and that you believed what I had said about my socks. In other words, let's say you had enough faith in me to accept my claim without seeing any evidence to support it.

If I took off my shoes, and showed you that I was indeed wearing red and blue striped socks, then you might have some rational grounds for believing me, or at least for suspecting that I might be telling the truth. And if I continued by rolling up my pants to show you that my socks extended all the way to my knees, then you would have all the evidence you would ever need. Your faith would be justified, but it would no longer be required, because the question would have become a matter of evidence, not one of faith.

But what if I took off my shoes and you could see my bare feet? Would you still believe me? It may seem incredible, especially in the context of this trivial and hypothetical example, but if your underlying belief that I would never lie to you were strong enough, you might continue to believe that I was wearing red and blue striped knee socks, even though you could see with your own eyes that I was wearing no socks at all. It would not take a great leap of intelligence to deduce that I was lying, but if your faith were strong enough, it might prevent you from making such a leap.

These thoughts have come into focus for me lately because of the reading I have been doing. As you may know, researchers from two major universities, NYU and Stanford, have recently collaborated in producing a report on America's use of unmanned missile-launchers (which we call "drones") against sketchily defined targets in Pakistan (which our government calls "terrorists"). Pakistan, as you may recall, is supposedly an American ally.

Their report, "Living Under Drones," documents the effects of these heartless killing machines against the defenseless people whose lives they can shatter at any moment. The report provides more detail than has ever appeared in the public record. And, although it makes for very unpleasant reading, it is an important contribution to our knowledge about these quasi-secret attacks. However ...  

Having spent quite some time reading "Living Under Drones," as well as many recent pieces about it, I have been struck by the number of times the report has been described as a valuable addition to the "public debate" on the issue, and the number of times the drone campaign has been called "counter-productive" -- even in critical, dissident analysis. And it pains me to say that such analysis appears to be generally accepted among dissidents and critics as "serious," possibly even "penetrating." I see it as deeply flawed.

The ever-incisive Chris Floyd stands alone among those whom I have read, in that he has pointed out one of these flaws. In his words,  

[T]his report will have no influence whatsoever on the non-existent "debate" [...] For beyond the rare, isolated op-ed, there is no "debate" on drone warfare in American political or media circles. The bipartisan political establishment is united in its support of the practice; indeed, both parties plan to expand the use of drones on a large scale in the future. This murderous record -- and this shameful complicity -- will be one of the Peace Laureate's  lasting legacies, whether he wins re-election or not.

But among the many observers whose words on this subject I have read, no one has apparently thought to pose the question: "Counter to what?"

It is easy to see why opponents of the drone attacks would argue that they are counter-productive. The critics also argue that the attacks are immoral, but hardly anyone expects this argument to carry any weight, given that the decision-makers behind the drone attacks -- Nobel Peace Laureate Barack Obama and his military-and-intelligence associates -- view their roles as beyond morality.

No nation is moral, say our great leaders, so international relations must be seen, and practiced, as an amoral enterprise, in which statesmen must be guided by self-interest, not morality. Therefore, to persuade our great leaders of anything, one must appeal to their self-interest, not their morals. Thus the critics claim that the drone attacks are counter-productive, in the obvious hope that this argument will cut some ice with the decision-makers, and in the almost certain knowledge that arguments based on morality will not do so.

Why are the drone attacks counter-productive? Because by killing innocent people, including women and children, they provoke anger against the USA, creating more terrorists than they eliminate. This doesn't make America safer; it actually makes America less safe. And it is therefore counter-productive. Or so the critics say.

In making this argument, the critics rely on the unspoken assumption that the Peace Laureate's stated goals are identical to his actual goals. This assumption rests on nothing but faith, since there is no actual evidence to support it. And it is a very powerful faith. We can deduce this because it endures, even though all the evidence points in the opposite direction.

In other words, the American Empire took off its shoes and rolled up its pants a long time ago. For many decades now, the whole world has been able to see that the American Empire wears no socks. And yet, a great many people, including some who would describe themselves as dissidents and critics, continue to believe what they've been told, rather than what they could see with their own eyes if they dared to look. These people, apparently despite their best efforts, are living under delusions. Such is the power of propaganda.

One important fact which many critics tend to overlook is that American politicians speak in a peculiar double-talk -- a slightly-secret code, one in which all the key words and phrases carry meanings very different than what they appear to mean. In most cases, the apparent meaning and the actual meaning are polar opposites. This is a long-standing tradition in American politics.

The "logic" of this double-talk was in play nearly a century ago, when Woodrow Wilson claimed World War I was about "Making The World Safe For Democracy," That project was a huge success, if you consider expanding the victors' spheres of commercial and military influence to be identical with making the world safe for a system of government whose two main enemies are commercial and military influence. 

Similarly, Franklin Roosevelt told us that World War II was being fought to provide "Self-Determination For All Peoples." This project worked out even better, if you consider being ruled by the Soviet Union to be the same as "self-determination" for all the peoples of eastern Europe -- and so on (this last phrase covering countless similar successes, from Algeria to Vietnam, in which one nation achieved "self-determination" by becoming, or remaining, a colony of another).

Indeed, American history is replete with such double-talk. The United States has a long and bloody record of destabilizing foreign countries while claiming to bring "stability," of interfering with democratic processes and overthrowing democratically elected governments while claiming to bring "democracy," and of fomenting economic devastation while claiming to bring "liberty."

None of this makes any sense at all, until you understand that a country has "stability" if it is ruled by an oppressive tyrant who does what the Americans tell him to do, that it is a "democracy" if its government (which may have been installed at gunpoint) supports the American Imperial Project, and that conditions of economic devastation provide a certain "liberty" to crooks of the most unscrupulous kind -- such as the American Imperialists.

Occasionally our great leaders (or prospective great leaders) offer us unintended glimpses of the reality behind the double-talk. Mitt Romney, for example, recently claimed that the most sacred duty in a democracy is to protect the overseas embassies. If taken at face value, this statement is pure rubbish. But if we understand that by "democracy," he means "empire," and that by "embassies," he means "bases," the statement makes perfect sense. The most important job in an empire is to protect the overseas bases. And clearly Mitt Romney understands this. He just doesn't know enough to keep his mouth shut about it.

Romney's statement is one tiny example among many which support my contention that the shoes are off, the pants are rolled up, and the Empire has no socks. And yet even some of his harshest critics persist in believing that (or acting as if) our Nobel Peace Laureate President is dedicated to making America safe, and adverse to creating more terrorists. Maybe it's because he keeps telling us he wants to prevent another 9/11.

As Robert Higgs has written, "there are no persistent 'failed' policies." In other words, any policy which is truly counter-productive to the actual goals will be quickly modified. And any long-standing policy which appears to be counter-productive to the stated goals should be seen as a signpost, marking a place where the stated goals and the actual goals are in direct conflict.

The signpost represented by "Living Under Drones" appears to indicate that, far from trying to keep America safe, prevent another 9/11, and win the "Global War On Terror" (or whatever they want us to call it this week), our Peace Laureate is actually trying to extend the Terror War, keep Americans in danger and afraid, and make another 9/11 more likely, or at least render the threat more plausible.
 
If the dissidents and critics who are still living under delusions could shed their blind (and blinding) faith in America's socks, they might reach the same conclusion by simple reasoning: If Barack Obama truly wanted to prevent another 9/11, he would have empowered a full and independent investigation of 9/11 itself. Then we could have identified the perpetrators of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and we might have brought them to justice, after which we would clearly be in a much better position to prevent another such attack.

But no full and independent investigation has taken place, nor will any such investigation take place anytime soon. The Peace Laureate has made that abundantly clear. And therefore, if he wants to prevent another 9/11, Obama must kill every Muslim on the planet, so that no future false-flag shenanigans can ever be blamed on "Islamic fundamentalists."

Maybe this is what he is trying to do -- kill them all, one family at a time, while enraging and terrorizing the rest. If so, his approach has been anything but counter-productive.

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Ten Years Of Murderous Nonsense

WTC6 was hollowed out. What did this?

Today marks the tenth anniversary of the last happy day of my life.

It was an ignorant sort of happy, but I remember it fondly nonetheless.

I may as well; tomorrow will mark ten years of murderous nonsense. The official story of 9/11 is impossible to believe, yet it is promoted more brazenly than any contemporary truth.

My effort to avoid the anniversary propaganda having failed, I started trying to mark the biggest, stupidest, 9/11-related lie I can find.

There are plenty of candidates for the honor.

WTC5 had multiple holes. What did this?

Some serious 9/11 researchers have been trying to compile a list of all the "holes" in the official story: the distortions, the omissions, the contradictions, the outright lies, and all the other bits and pieces of evidence which suggest that the real story behind 9/11 is not the one we have been told.

These people remind me of the Renaissance mathematicians who spent their whole lives trying to find all the prime numbers.

The mathematicians were working for the royal courts, in many cases, whereas the 9/11 researchers are working against the powers of our day.

But the fields of research are more or less equally infinite.

Being somewhat less ambitious, I started a list of the people who used to be, or used to be considered, investigative journalists, or at least honest dissident writers, but who have shown quite clearly that their primary interest in the truth about 9/11 is in bashing those who seek it.

What burned these cars?

My list would certainly have been finite, but I lacked the discipline required to keep adding to it.

At last I settled on a smaller task: finding the undisputed facts in the official story.

My list now contains the date, as well as the names and locations of some of the buildings which were damaged or destroyed on that day.

I do not see any possibility of adding to this list in the future.

And that's the state of play.

Jerome Hauer

What drilled huge holes in WTC5 and WTC6?

What burned hundreds of cars, some more than half a mile away from the WTC?

Why are such questions not allowed even at so-called '9/11 Truth' sites?

I could write at length about such matters, and if I were healthy I would probably do so. But I can't.

Instead I can only point out that the people who disseminated the official story of 9/11, the people who have fabricated new "research" to support it, and the people who mount vicious attacks on those of us who don't buy their murderous nonsense, are all -- by their own choice -- mortal enemies of everything that is true and just and righteous, and therefore of all humanity.

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Norway's 9/11: The Horror Is In The Message

The front page of The Sun
blamed the attacks on al Qaeda.

Unlike many other writers of various political persuasions, I have had great difficulty putting into words my reactions to the recent events in Norway. I hope my comments, though belated, may prove to be of some value.

As you must have read by now, a bomb exploded in central Oslo on the afternoon of July 22, killing eight people. And a few hours later, a shooting rampage decimated a gathering of about 700 people on the picturesque island of Utoeya, northwest of Oslo.

I became aware of the attacks shortly after the explosion but before the shooting started, and I got my first hint that things were not as they appeared when I saw that ABC News, citing U.S. State Department sources, had declared the blast the result of "a vehicle bomb."

This happened before the Norwegian police were even calling it "a bomb."

"How," I asked myself, "could the State Department know more about the cause of the blast than the police who were just starting to investigate it?"

"Watch closely," an inner voice replied, "and you may find out."

So I watched and read and listened and learned.

Bomb damage in Oslo, July 22, 2011

The target of the bomb appears to have been government offices, and the victims of the shooting were attending a camp run by the youth wing of the Labor Party. And the bombing and the shooting were the work of one man, Anders Behring Breivik, who planned the assault for nine years without any outside help, and pulled it off without any apparent source of significant income.

The shooting spree lasted more than an hour, even though the police had been alerted. They couldn't reach the island quickly because no helicopters were available, and no helicopters were available because all the helicopter crews were on holiday simultaneously. So the police approached by road and inflatable raft instead. But they overloaded the raft and it began to sink, so it took more than one try before they could reach the island. And still, they say they made the quickest response anyone could have asked for.

Even though multiple eyewitnesses described bullets coming from multiple directions, and some spoke of a shooter with dark hair, the blond-haired Breivik, who arrived on the island wearing a police uniform, acted completely alone, according to the Norwegian authorities. Therefore it should come as no surprise that all his court appearances will be held in secret, to prevent him sending coded messages to his accomplices.

In polite company, it may be considered improper to ask how the lone nut killer obtained a police uniform. Did the police search his residence? Did they find a sewing machine? Solitary psychos must sew their own uniforms, no? They can't get them anywhere else, can they? Not if they want to remain "lone" nuts!

After killing more than 60 campers, Breivik reportedly called the police, who arrived promptly and arrested him without a fight. The story is getting more and more credible as it develops, is it not?

The killer allegedly left a 1500-page manifesto, some of which was plagiarized from the Unabomber and some of which refers to modern writers who take extreme anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant positions. Although Breivik was Norwegian, the manifesto is mostly about other countries. There's not much about Norway itself. And it's in fluent English, which has made certain people wonder.

Bomb damage in Oslo, July 22, 2011

The manifesto was reportedly emailed to 250 of the lone nut's closest associates just before the attacks, and discovered online shortly afterward. In it, the author claims to have traveled extensively, although no record can be found of Breivik ever earning substantial income. How could he afford all that travel? Alas, we are getting ahead of ourselves.

When the story broke, many mainstream "news services" jumped to the immediate conclusion that the carnage was the work of al Q'aeda. Rupert Murdoch's British tabloid, The Sun, ran a front page headline saying as much, and calling the episode "Norway's 9/11." For words such as these, the mainstream operators were heavily criticized, even though the claim appears to have been substantially correct.

The suspect, who has been "strikingly calm" according to the police, appears to be a brain-damaged patsy. The story being told by the victimized government is full of internal contradictions and dotted with assertions that cannot possibly be said to make any sense. The mainstream media are busy echoing the official tale with blatant disregard for its lack of provenance, having made no discernible attempt to verify any of it. And many so-called "investigative reporters" and "dissident bloggers" are doing the very same thing, even though some of the self-incriminating evidence Breivik supposedly posted on the Internet did not appear until the day after he was arrested. It's 9/11 all over again, but on a different stage and in a different language.

And, just as in the aftermath of 9/11, reports almost everywhere have been full of transparently obvious nonsense.

Bomb damage in Oslo, July 22, 2011

As one example among many, consider the following, written by Peter Beaumont in The Guardian of July 23:

Norwegian police said that the individual believed responsible for the shooting in Utøya, a 32-year-old Norwegian man, was also spotted in Oslo before the bombing there.

The targeted nature of the attacks at both government offices and the Labour party youth camp both suggest a more political agenda rather than an attempt to create widespread terror.

Norwegian news reports said that police did not think the attacks were linked to international terrorism and that it was more likely directed at the current political system.

There were reports that the gunman responsible for the attack on PM Jens Stoltenberg's party youth camp on the island of Utøya was blond haired and Nordic looking – allegations still yet to be confirmed.

This suggests the attack might have been the work of an individual or individuals closer in outlook to the Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh driven by their own ideology, a theory backed up by a Norwegian police official who told the Associated Press the man suspected of the attacks does not appear to be linked to Islamist terrorism. He went on to say that the attacks probably have more in common with the 1995 attack on a US federal building in Oklahoma City than the September 11 2001 attacks.

The suspect appeared to have acted alone, he said, and "it seems like that this is not linked to any international terrorist organisations at all." He added that the investigation is still ongoing and that things can change.

Did you catch all that? Top marks if you did; it's spinning in so many different directions simultaneously that it's tough to catch any of it. So let's go slowly:

The targets of the attacks suggest a political agenda, rather than an attempt to create widespread terror. Why? Apparently because the fear generated by attacks on office buildings and defenseless children would not be widespread, provided the buildings and the children were connected to a political party.

Anders Breivik, the blond suspect

Even though allegations that the gunman was blond haired and Nordic looking were still unconfirmed, a Norwegian police official had already told the Associated Press that the suspect appeared to have acted alone. How did the police know this? Maybe they had been tipped off by one of the hundreds of people to whom Breivik emailed his manifesto.

All of the above certainly explains why the police could say, "it seems ... this is not linked to any international terrorist organisations at all," before journalists could even obtain confirmation of the color of the suspect's hair. It all makes perfect sense if you look at it from a certain angle.

Some people may think it's a remarkable coincidence that the police, who couldn't get a SWAT team to the scene of a massacre in less than an hour, could say almost immediately where the killer was seen before the attacks began, let alone that he apparently had no accomplices. It's probably also a coincidence that police conducted a bomb-scare terror drill and that suspicious sewer work was reported being done on Wednesday, in the very place where the bomb went off on Friday.

What can we make of all these strange coincidences? My understanding of the events in Norway has been colored by some of the writers I have been accustomed to reading, and my understanding of those writers has been colored to a certain extent by their coverage of the events.

In the blogosphere, I started, as I usually do, with Chris Floyd, whose site, Empire Burlesque, has been a great source of information and inspiration as long as it has existed. Floyd's one and only piece on the subject, "Fade to White: The Tender Treatment of Christian Terror," was posted the day after the attacks, and it reads:

There is not much to say about the horrific events in Norway, beyond this general observation. If a white, Christian nationalist carries out such atrocities, then he is, inevitably and always, a "lone nut," an outlier, emblematic of nothing but his own individual lunacy. But if a Muslim -- or any person of color or non-white ethnicity -- does anything similar (or indeed, far less serious in scope), why then, that perpetrator is emblematic of an entire race or religion or ethnic group: a group which must then be laid under collective suspicion, and collective harrasment, by the "security" forces (and the chattering classes) of the West.

In the coming days, we will hear much about the tormented psychology of the Norwegian terrorist ... who, as Glenn Greenwald notes, will no longer be known as a "terrorist" at all -- precisely because he is white, Christian and a "patriot."

I agree with almost all of this. But in my opinion, there is a great deal to say about these horrific events.

The piece by Glenn Greenwald to which Floyd linked was called "The omnipotence of Al Qaeda and meaninglessness of 'Terrorism'" and it primarily concerned itself with tracking the early mainstream coverage of the attacks. All such coverage, needless to say, assumed that 9/11 was done by bearded Muslim madmen in caves half a world away who couldn't even talk to one another on their cell phones without the NSA knowing what they were saying, but who somehow outsmarted the largest security apparatus ever built and outmanoeuvered the laws of physics to demolish three buildings with just two airplanes.

All such coverage, needless to say, is worthless, as are the propaganda organs which produced it. How anyone could analyze such nonsense every day, without ever mentioning that it is nonsense, is beyond me. But this could be one of the reasons why Glenn Greenwald has a huge audience whereas I do not.

In an earlier post called "The Oslo attacks," Greenwald had taken the New York Times to task for its description of Norway, writing:

Most media accounts express bafflement that Norway would be the target of such an attack given how peaceful it is; The New York Times, for instance, said "the attacks appeared to be part of a coordinated assault on the ordinarily peaceful Scandinavian nation." This is simply inaccurate. Norway is a nation at war -- in more than just one country.

Far from grasping the NYT's point that Norway is fittingly described as "ordinarily peaceful" because gun violence is not rampant in its cities (unlike some countries one could name), and mass murder there was formerly very rare (ahem), Greenwald continued by documenting Norway's relatively minor involvement in Afghanistan and Libya, and wrote:

I simply do not understand this bafflement being expressed that Norway -- of all countries -- would be targeted with violence.

Regardless of the justifications of these wars -- and Norway is in both countries as part of a U.N. action -- it is simply a fact that Norway has sent its military to two foreign countries where it is attacking people, dropping bombs, and killing civilians. Historically, one reason not to invade and attack other countries is because doing so often prompts one's own country to be attacked. Western nations typically only attack countries that are incapable of responding in kind, but those nations and their sympathizers are capable of perpetrating asymmetrical attacks of the sort that Oslo just suffered.

I cannot argue with Greenwald's other main point -- one so obvious that in a sane world it would not even require a mention -- that our media take a different approach to violence inflicted by Western countries than to violence inflicted upon Western countries.

But I can argue with part of his conclusion, which runs:

[O]ur own country and those in alliance with it -- unintentionally or otherwise -- replicate the horror that took place in Oslo in countless places around the world with great regularity, and that requires at least as much attention and discussion as the Oslo attacks are sure to receive.

Specifically, I don't understand how the horrors our countries inflict on others could possibly be described as "unintentional." But I suppose we must consider the source, the audience, and the platform.

However, my primary area of disagreement in this instance lies in the way Greenwald speculatively connects the attacks on Norway to the wars in Afghanistan and Libya, without mentioning that these wars were instigated and are driven from places like Washington, London, and Tel Aviv (which would be more likely targets for anyone seriously seeking retribution), or that Norway has obviously been, like many other small European countries, dragged into foreign entanglements reluctantly, pressured by the usual extortions and lies about membership in NATO and the UN, and itching to get out.

With respect to Libya, Greenwald's "connection" was especially spurious, because even as the war instigators were saying it might take a year or longer to effect the changes they desire, the Norwegians had already announced the imminent end of their participation in slaughter of innocent Africans.

But then again, we must consider the source and the platform. Unfortunately for the audience, in order to offer a more credible explanation for why Norway might have been so brutally attacked, one must grasp the third rail of American politics. This, as Glenn Greenwald has shown repeatedly, he will not do.

I certainly agree with William Blum, who wrote:

Amidst all the sadness and horror surrounding the massacre in Norway, we should not lose sight of the fact that "peaceful little Norway" participated in the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999; has deployed troops in Iraq; has troops in Afghanistan; and has supplied warplanes for NATO's bombing of Libya. The teenagers of those countries who lost their lives to the US/NATO killing machine wanted to live to adulthood and old age as much as the teenagers in Norway. With all the condemnation of "extremism" we now hear in Norway and around the world we must ask if this behavior of the Norwegian government, as well as that of the United States and NATO, is not "extremist".

But to explain the significance of "Norway's 9/11," one must delve much deeper.

Breivik (or someone who looks a
bit like him) in a mock military uniform.

William Blum has compiled and continues to enlarge an agonizingly long and detailed compendium of CIA black ops -- crimes against democracy and crimes against humanity committed over the decades and all around the world. But he still accepts the official lies about "America's 9/11." Apparently he has trouble recognizing a black op when he sees one unfolding.

An even less astute analysis came from another longstanding favourite, Bob Koehler, who wrote:

Young adults — teenagers — being stalked and methodically murdered at their bucolic summer camp on Utoya Island in Norway. In God’s name, why?

This is the question we ask instantaneously, with sucked-in breath. Why? The question is bigger than any answer we make up. The killer, Anders Behring Breivik, had an agenda, of course. The Utoya murders, along with the deaths meted out by the bomb he detonated in Oslo a short while earlier — 76 victims in all — were explicit political killings; but first, they were the product of some psycho-social kink in the human condition ... Anders Behring Breivik is our creation.

Koehler's column is, like many others, utterly devoid of skepticism. Worse, in my opinion, it incorrectly tries to assign the blame for this monstrous attack, it claims without proof that the question is bigger than any possible answer, and it implies that the only available answers are those we "make up."

Well, no! Bob, I'm sorry! Anders Behring Breivik is not my creation! Neither is he yours! Please do what you ask and expect of real journalists: look at your sources to see whether they make any sense, and whether what they say is verifiable, before you go any further. This outrage is not my fault. It's not yours, either. Rather than labeling the killer "our creation," guys like you should be trying to figure out whose fault it really is, rather than simply pointing fingers at the mainstream media for pinning the blame on al Q'aeda.

It's been almost 10 years since ordinary Americans first heard of al Q'aeda, and if they are still inclined to link outrageously brutal terrorism with Muslim madmen, that reflects nothing so much as the failure of our allegedly dissident writers. We didn't expect the war-cheerleaders to stop in the middle of their blood-orgy and tell us the truth themselves, did we?

A large part of the horror of "America's 9/11" became visible in the aftermath, when, one after another, supposedly dissident writers, who were then thought of as leaders of the purported anti-war movement, published vicious screeds attacking the people who were questioning the official story of those attacks. Another part of the horror came more gradually, with the slow realization that certain writers were never going to mention doubts about the official story at all, much less tackle them.

To see so many intelligent people accepting without question another blatantly ridiculous official story about another politically-motivated mass murder was not especially surprising -- after all, it's been ten years. But, seriously: What has Norway been doing lately to tick off powerful people? Why is this question so difficult for people to formulate?

It turns out that the question itself isn't especially difficult. The problem people are apparently having is with the answer.

Norway has been a reluctant member of NATO's foreign expeditions. Norway owns and manages its own natural resources. Norway has refused to join the EU. And Norway has been a major thorn in the side of Israel.

Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store was met by demands that
Norway must recognize a Palenstinian state when he visited the
Labour Youth League summer camp on July 21. (Reuters)

From boycotting Israeli goods to divesting from joint Norwegian-Israeli enterprises; from resisting pro-Israeli propaganda merchants to barring investment by Israeli companies; from sponsoring education about Israel's crimes against the Palestinians to calling for Israeli leaders to be tried for their crimes; from offering to recognize a Palestinian state to threatening to attack Israel in the event of another attack on Gaza or the West Bank (using the same logic currently in play in Libya), Norway has been leading a growing worldwide campaign to stand up for the victims in the region, rather than the aggressors. The Labor Party has been prominent in that effort, and the youth of the party have been especially committed -- committed to supporting some of the most forsaken people on Earth.

Let us review, shall we? Supposedly to atone for crimes committed by Germans, the people of Palestine have been forced off their land, penned up in open-air concentration camps, cut off from normal life by walls and checkpoints, and terrorized by armed Israeli madmen who shoot first and ask no questions.

Their groves, to which they are almost always denied access, are being burnt and ripped up and converted into settlements in which the rightful owners are unwelcome at gunpoint. Their land and water have been stolen, their freedom of movement has been curtailed, and many thousands of them have been killed. But this is not enough for their oppressors, who now use deadly force against peaceful people who wish to bring them assistance.

And nobody is supposed to read about any of this, and nobody is supposed to write about any of this, except for propaganda outlets who deny that the Palestinians are oppressed, or that they are people, or who claim it's their own fault. And anybody who dares to criticize Israeli policy is anti-Semitic.

For that reason, members of the mainstream audience will never have access to the idea that the attack on Norway may have been a scripted event, a prefabricated act of terror in which Anders Breivik was a pawn of forces larger than he could ever imagine.

To some people, it will always remain an inexplicable act of madness, a psycho-social kink in the human condition, horrible and insane and ultimately meaningless. There are even some writers arguing that any attempt to find meaning in the Norway massacre is a sign of an unhinged mind.

If that is the case, I am proud to be unhinged. Ultimately, I have no choice, because the meaning of the massacre is as clear to me as it apparently is to some Norwegians, such as the Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, who seemed to be speaking to a foreign audience when he said:

I have a message to the people who attacked us, and those behind them. This is a message from all of Norway:

You will not destroy us.

You will not destroy our democracy nor our quest for a better world. We are a small nation, but we are a proud nation.

No one shall bomb us into silence or shoot us into silence. Nothing will frighten us out of being Norway.

This night we will comfort each other, talk with each other, and stand together. Tomorrow we will show the world that Norway’s democracy grows stronger when it is challenged. We shall find the guilty and hold them responsible.

If Jens Stoltenberg believed the guilty had already been found, he would not have been speaking in such terms, would he? He seemed to be responding to a secret message, rather than reacting to the crime which the police and media have described.

But the message was no secret.

You will go along with the program. You will send your troops where we tell you, you will buy foreign products regardless of ethical considerations, you will stop supporting the vermin we are trying to eradicate, and under no circumstances will you threaten anyone.

Otherwise we will bomb your offices and kill your children.

We will do it on a famous anniversary, but it in such a way that no direct evidence leads back to us.

We will do it in a way that shows your police are thoroughly compromised and no use to you at all. We will do it in a way that exacerbates tensions between Christians and Moslems. And we will do it in a way that lends credibility to those who would trash the best features of your open, democratic society.

We will cover our tracks with a lame distraction which will confirm quite clearly -- to those with eyes to see -- that the entire world's "news" media are in our pocket. And most of your friends and neighbors -- including many who should know better -- will play along with it, if they show any interest at all.

And then ... ah, yes: then we will rejoice in your grief!

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Still Kicking

Kick the ball with your instep. [source]

I apologize for leaving this blog dormant for so long. I'm still kicking, and to prove it, I've started a redesign of the site to take advantage of some of the new features that Blogger has been offering for years and years. Some of us are slow that way. Sorry about that.

If you are accustomed to scanning the blogroll, you will find it's not on the sidebar anymore, but at the bottom of the page. The same goes for the blog archives, although the news links are in their usual place.

The redesign may have scrambled some old posts, and one of my many happy tasks in the upcoming days and weeks is to find and fix them. Sometimes there's a reason why we're slow.

I hope to get back here again soon, both to finish the redesign and to write a post or two. In the meantime I am still busy researching the life and death of Gareth Williams and writing "Sherlock Holmes And The Alderney Street Mystery," to which I gently draw your attention.

With any luck, I will soon be able to write about the recent events in Norway. I am also working on some other things, and I will post them when they are ready but not sooner. In the meantime I thank you for visiting my mostly dormant blog, and I remind you to kick the ball with your instep.

UPDATE: My friend Bob in Prague remarked in an email, "Don't forget to bounce!" In my view, if you hit it right, you can't avoid bouncing! which sets you up perfectly for a back-flip when the ball hits the back of the net!