The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Jonathan Revusky Archive
A Framework for Reclaiming Reality
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_193613897
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

I believe I first read George Orwell’s essay, Politics and the English Language, as part of the reading list for an English 101 college class. I was a teenager at the time and I don’t believe I really understood what Orwell was getting at. I think my understanding was at the superficial level. I mostly just took it to be a screed against crappy writing — which it is, of course. But it is much more than that. Some of the ideas in that essay were later developed in his magnum opus, the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, wherein the government of Oceania are designing a new language called Newspeak, which brings to mind the current-day scourge of “political correctness”. Come to think of it, Nineteen Eighty-Four is also something I first read around that time but did not fully understand.

Now, here we are, 66 years after Orwell’s untimely death and many of these ideas he explores in his writing are still topical and relevant. In fact, increasingly so. When it comes to understanding the pervasive propaganda matrix, one important aspect is seeing how language is manipulated to frame issues. Much of this is quite blatant. Anybody paying the slightest attention ought to notice how different words are used depending on the desired framing. Thus, Osama Bin Laden was a “freedom fighter” when he was fighting the Soviet Union, but when he started opposing the United States, he became a “terrorist”. Likewise, if an enemy uses a torture method like water-boarding, it is simply called torture and is utterly deplorable. When we do it, it is “enhanced interrogation”.

I wonder what Orwell would have made of what happened to the word “gay”. Surely, in his time, it was perfectly normal to say: “You seem in a very gay mood today!” Nowadays, not so much. Granted, language is a living, dynamic thing, and thus tends to evolve over time. However, I don’t think this particular change of meaning happened organically. It seems to be an example of deliberate framing. While there already was a perfectly good, neutral term, “homosexual”, and we still have that word, it seems there was a conscious attempt to promote “gay” as an alternative term with a more positive connotation, what with its normal meaning of “merry” or “cheerful”.

The case where Orwell would have had a field day, though, is with the word “conspiracy”. The official dictionary definition has not changed since Orwell’s day. From the Merriam-Webster dictionary online:

  • a secret plan made by two or more people to do something harmful or illegal
  • the act of secretly planning to do something that is harmful or illegal

By that definition, a conspiracy theory would just mean some theory that posits that two or more people planned in secret to do some shit. Nonetheless, the very same Merriam-Webster dictionary has a separate entry for “conspiracy theory”.

  • a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups

Truth told, I don’t think the above definition of “conspiracy theory” is really adequate, at least assuming that the purpose of a dictionary is to document how words are actually used. This definition comes nowhere near fully capturing to what extent this has become a term of derision. In popular usage, the person who believes in conspiracies, the conspiracy theorist, is taken to be self-evidently crazy and anything he says can be dismissed out of hand.

I assume that Orwell would note that the way this term is used contains built-in question-begging. By all means, tell me that what I am saying is absurd and crazy, be my guest. Except, now, you do have to demonstrate that it is!

Well, apparently not… When somebody says: “Oh, that’s just a conspiracy theory!” don’t hold your breath waiting for the explanation of why the theory is wrong. ‘Cause it ain’t coming! No, somehow the person who trots out this cliché is relieved of any obligation to demonstrate, using facts and logic, that an idea is mistaken. It’s enough to just say “Conspiracy theory!” like some sort of magical incantation that short-circuits all the necessary debate.

Actually, it is well established that this state of affairs did not come about on its own, but rather, was deliberately engineered by the CIA in the wake of the Kennedy assassination. Nonetheless, I do wonder whether they anticipated just how successful they would be in implanting this notion in the public mind — that believing in so-called “conspiracies” was the hallmark of a nutter.

We can read old novels and characters say things like: “I’m feeling a bit queer, it must be something I ate.” But nowadays, most of us find some other way to express the idea. Rage, by all means, that yet another perfectly innocent English word has suffered an identity theft. But know that it serves no purpose. Once you recognize that a word has become effectively unusable, you just have to look for an alternative term to use. In the case of “conspiracy”, I would propose that we talk more in terms of “deep events” and “deep politics”. Using that framing, the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 are quintessential “deep events” that require a “deep political analysis” to be properly understood. I think this is a good counter-framing of the question. If you say, quite correctly, that Lee Harvey Oswald was just a patsy and there was a high-level conspiracy to kill Kennedy, you’ve all but conceded the debate, given how the word “conspiracy” has been hijacked. If you say, on the other hand, that the JFK assassination was a “deep event” that requires a “deep political analysis”, you are implicitly saying that the people repeating this discredited “Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone” nonsense are not engaging in a deep political analysis, but rather a shallow analysis. I mean to say, there really is the need to think about how they manipulate language to frame these questions and to come up with a counter to that.

When it comes to this sort of framing, aside from the overloading of already existing words, like “conspiracy” or “gay”, there is also the invention of new words — neologisms to use the more academic term. For our purposes here, there is nothing particularly interesting about the cases where a new word is invented to describe something that really did not exist before and now does — like “smartphone”. What we need to examine are the cases where new words enter common usage for propaganda or framing purposes.

In this vein, the term “blowback” really merits some careful consideration. The aforementioned Merriam-Webster dictionary claims that the first known use of the word is from 1973, while the wikipedia page on the term cites CIA internal documents from 1954. Said documents expressed the concern that the CIA operation to overthrow the government of Mossadegh in Iran could lead to “blowback”. (Boy, did it ever!)

It seems that the discrepancy between Wikipedia’s first usage of the term in 1954 and Merriam-Webster saying that it was 1973 is that Merriam Webster was referring to public usage. It does not seem under dispute that “blowback” began as internal CIA shorthand that meant unintended (and undesirable) consequences of CIA covert operations.

The “Blowback” theory of terrorism

At this point in time, the term “blowback” seems to have gone from being internal CIA jargon to being a sort of shibboleth of the left-liberal intelligentsia. The basic idea is that the major terrorist events of recent history, such as 9/11 or 7/7 in London or the recent events in Paris and Brussels, are a natural (yet unintended) result of the brutal policies of Western governments in far off (largely Muslim) countries. Anybody listening to these people would surely conclude that this is a well established phenomenon. But what is odd is that when you step back and look at this with ample historical perspective, the whole concept looks pretty dubious. Let’s consider certain key facts:

The British Empire…

Some people look back on it fondly, but it is safe to say that a lot of people around the world really did not appreciate it; they had their reasons… So, if “blowback terrorism” is a real, important phenomenon, the British Empire should have had a huge “blowback” problem, no? Surely angry Indians or Africans or Arabs were plotting how they would make their way to London and kill some random Brits to express their dissatisfaction with British government policies, no? And surely, the local authorities in the home country of Britain were on constant guard against this “blowback”, right?

Well…. not exactly….

The police departments of American cities have been acquiring military grade weaponry to deal with an alleged terrorism threat, yet throughout the entire period of the British empire, English cops felt no need to even carry a firearm. Ain’t that something?

What is striking about this is that, not only were the authorities of the time not concerned about “blowback”, they did not even have a word for it! The very word had not been invented yet! This phenomenon, disgruntled people showing up in London or Paris or New York and carrying out terrorist attacks as a result of whatever meddling in their country — there was not even a word for it!

Well, the sun set on the British Empire a while back and it could be that something happened since then such that blowback terrorism became a big problem. Scan forward a bit…. the United States carpet bombed villagers throughout Southeast Asia, killing literally millions of innocents, yet I cannot recall a single “blowback” terrorism incident, where somebody who lost his entire family, entire village, decided to get even by blowing up some Americans in California. It never happened, I think not even once. There are large ethnic Vietnamese populations in the U.S. and all it would take is one embittered person, but no… nothing.

Fast forward to the 1980′s and we can make some similar comments about very brutal U.S. policies in Central America, the support for Nicaraguan contras or the Salvadoran death squads. Surely the U.S. suffered a wave of “blowback terrorism” as a result, no? Uh,.. no. There was a large population of refugees from those countries. Most of them, in my own personal experience, are very nice people, but out of hundreds of thousands of them, surely all it would take is one person with a grudge to do a suicide bombing or some such thing. But it doesn’t seem to have happened.

So, on the face of it, so-called “blowback terrorism” is a very dubious concept, no? There are so many situations where, by all rights, there should have been plenty of “blowback terrorism”, or some amount anyway, but it just never happened! And I don’t mean to say that it was rare. No, there simply was not a single case! I think it bears repeating: it was so rare that nobody had yet bothered to invent a word for it!

Magical Incantations

In the above, I referred to the term “conspiracy theory” as a magical incantation of a sort. Another way of putting this is that the use of the term contains built-in question-begging. The person using this loaded term is strongly implying that the so-called “conspiracy theory” is self-evidently crazy. However, that is precisely what needs to be demonstrated!

The term “blowback” is similar. It contains an implicit theory of events that there should be a need to demonstrate. Specifically, the concept of “blowback” is that a certain outcome is an unfortunate, and unintended consequence of whatever policy. Thus, the rise of these “jihadist” or “islamist” groups such as Al Qaeda or ISIS/Daesh was an unanticipated consequence of U.S. policy. Or to put it another way, this is a bug, as opposed to a feature.

But is that true? Well, maybe… but that is precisely what there is a need to demonstrate, no? The person using this “blowback” term is simply begging the question, assuming the proposition that needs to be proven, that whatever phenomenon is an unintended consequence of the government’s foreign policy — as opposed to it being an intended result.

Of course, more importantly, the people using the term “blowback terrorism” assume invariably that the people whom the authorities claim carried out the terrorist attacks in question actually did so! They always seem to be willfully ignorant of all of the independent research that shows that the people in question were just patsies. But hey, that’s what the other magical incantation, “conspiracy theory”, is for: to dismiss all of that independent research! Don’t even bother to look at any of that. Those are all just “conspiracy theories”.

Now, the foregoing discussion leads us two key questions — well, I think they are two separate questions, albeit rather entangled with one another:

  • Given that the “blowback” theory of terrorism is quite tenuous at best (since in situations where there should have been a lot of blowback terrorism, there was none) then why is the entire American “intelligentsia” so invested in this explanation? In particular, figures such as Noam Chomsky and Chris Hedges and many others (practically anybody who writes for Counterpunch and other such “alternative media”) never tire of telling us that an event such as 9/11 is “blowback”. Likewise for the recent events in France and Belgium.
  • The aforementioned people are not stupid. So, must we conclude that they are being consciously dishonest when they use these magical incantations such as “blowback” or “conspiracy theory”?

I think the first question can be answered with some level of confidence. As for the second question, whether these people are being consciously dishonest, it is hard, maybe impossible, to come to any determination on that. Possibly these various intellectual gatekeepers are not even being consciously dishonest for the most part. In their own minds, they are honest, but they have internalized a kind of tortuous mental gymnastics to such a degree that it has become second nature to them. This is the phenomenon that I shall now explore.

The HIQI revisited and introducing the concept of TITT

In a previous article, I introduced the concept of the HIQI, which is the “High IQ Idiot”. A HIQI is a person with a fairly high IQ and typically a high level of formal education (the two things usually go together obviously…) who has an abysmally low BDQ, Bullshit Detection Quotient.

Now, nobody really took much issue with the HIQI or BDQ concepts. I guess it corresponds to most people’s casual observation: somebody can have an arbitrarily high IQ and still be utterly incapable of seeing through political propaganda (a.k.a. bullshit). In fact, the bullshit can be really laughably absurd, cartoonish — hence my terminology of RRN, Roger Rabbit Narrative — yet the HIQI in question cannot see through it. So I made that observation in the article and I don’t think hardly anybody really disagreed with me, but what I didn’t do was make any attempt to explain why.

Well, actually, I don’t even presume to know fully the reasons why so many high IQ people are so easily taken in by absurd political propaganda. What I’ll attempt to do though is to lay some groundwork that could be useful in exploring the question. What I shall do now is go off on what looks like a tangent and introduce a sort of archetypal situation. My point may not be initially obvious but please bear with me.

Let us consider an intellectual figure in the Middle Ages, who has a great interest in understanding celestial phenomena. Let’s say this early astronomer has developed a theory to explain a certain phenomenon — the solar eclipse, let’s say. Let us call this theory A.

Theory A is a very clear, very elegant model of the solar eclipse. However, it has a very major problem. Theory A is based on the heliocentric model, i.e. the earth revolves around the sun. Well, that is not the problem precisely. After all, the earth does revolve around the sun. The problem is that, at this point in time, this was considered to be heresy. (Heresy, by the way, is the older term, what they used to call inconvenient truths, long before the CIA came up with the term “conspiracy theory”.)

Or, alternatively, the real problem is that our medieval astronomer does not fancy getting burnt at the stake, which is what they used to do to conspiracy theorists heretics back then. (Medical knowledge was not as advanced as it is now, but it was generally understood that this was not good for one’s health.)

So what is one to do? Well, let’s say that the not so heroic hero of our story decides to tear up his elegant theory A and comes up with a new theory, theory B.

Theory B is very inelegant and complicated compared to theory A. It has a very contrived feel about it. Despite having invented the theory himself, our astronomer is not really very happy with it, thinking that it is actually kind of self-contradictory and doesn’t withstand very much scrutiny at all.

The advantage of theory B — actually its only positive point — is that it is not heretical. Theory B is based on the sun revolving around the earth, as Church doctrine claims. What happens now in the story is that, much to this person’s surprise, theory B is widely lauded and accepted by the leading minds of the day.

Okay, this is the story and we can make certain observations about it. First of all, we do not need to introduce any new terminology to describe theory A. Theory A is simply the correct explanation, the truth. Yes, it runs counter to Catholic Church dogma, but hey, guys, check out this radical concept:

Objective reality simply exists. It is not the slightest bit constrained by Catholic Church dogma… OR any other dogma!

Now, theory B is, of course, not the correct explanation. In fact, it only comes into existence because the correct explanation, theory A, is taboo, heresy. And that, obviously, is why the leading thinkers of the day rush to endorse theory B and disavow theory A. Theory B is not a very good theory, it doesn’t withstand much serious scrutiny, but it won’t get you burnt at the stake!

Now for some new terminology. The phenomenon that the above story illustrates is Taboo Induced Tortuous Thinking (or Theorizing) which we can call TITT for short. Such tortuous thinking leads to Taboo Induced Tortuous Theories, or TITTs, of which theory B above is an example. (As for the approved pronunciation of TITT, I’m not going to be very prescriptive. I always assumed that the pronunciation of HIQI was pretty clearly “hickey”. As for TITT, if the final T is pronounced separately, it is Tit-Tee. If the term really catches on, we could have a vote. It does not strike me as such an important matter to resolve in any case. For example, if British readers prefer to think that BDQ stands for “Bollocks Detection Quotient”, I have no particular objection. A native speaker of Spanish would tend to pronounce TITT more like “teat”, which also seems appropriate. So I’m willing to leave this up to the reader.)

Grasping TITT

Now, once you understand this concept, then (as per Doctor Freud) you start seeing TITTs everywhere! You open the op-ed page of the New York Times or some such mainstream publication and you just see nothing but TITTs — explanations for events that are very tortuous and contrived and you realize they are necessary because the correct, simpler explanation is a taboo. It dawns on you that many of the conventional explanations of events that you were taught as part of your (mis)education are actually just examples of Taboo Induced Tortuous Thinking. Thus:

  • The mainstream history of the Second World War is chock full of TITTs.
  • The Warren Commission explanation of the Kennedy assassination is a TITT.
  • The 9/11 Commission Report is a TITT.
  • All the mainstream media explanation of what happened in Ukraine in the past few years is TITT.
  • The theory of “Blowback Terrorism” is a TITT.

This is a very incomplete list, of course…

Yes, WW2, a.k.a. the “Good War”. I was hesitant to go there for obvious reasons, but aspects of the conventional history are such major examples of TITT that I think we really need to examine it a moment. So here goes:

On 22 June 1941, Germany launched an invasion of the Soviet Union. Some months later, the German army was occupying a large part of the country, had encircled major Soviet army groups, taking millions of prisoners. And not long after that, German troops were on the outskirts of Moscow and Leningrad. So, at this historical juncture, when this country, the Soviet Union, the flagbearer of international communism, was on the verge of collapse, what did the major capitalist countries do?

  1. Simply stay out of it and hope that Hitler’s Germany would finish off the USSR, and thus remove the specter of communism for good
  2. Actively join in with Germany to make sure they finished off the USSR
  3. Pull out all the stops in order to save the USSR, economic aid, lend-lease, sending supplies and equipment…

Well, it’s a silly question, right? You all know the answer. (I hope to hell you know the answer. If you don’t, go get some remedial education…) What happened is number 3. The question to consider, though, is this: let’s say you didn’t know that the answer was 3, let’s say you are Rumpelstiltskin and you went to sleep on 21 June 1941 and just woke up. And now you are catching up on the last 75 years of history, what would you guess?

I put it to you that option 3 is very surprising. In particular, why would the United States, the pre-eminent capitalist power in the world, be so intent on saving the Soviet Union? My own guess would be that option 1 is the most likely as there is no strong reason for the U.S. in particular to want the Soviet Union to survive. Surely the owners of the country, the capitalist corporate elite, would very much like to the see the Soviet Union destroyed.

Now, option 2 seems less likely than option 1 because, okay, they may not like the German regime that much either, not enough to actively ally with it. In any case, in principle, you need a positive reason to actually get involved in a fight; simply remaining neutral in a conflict so far away is the default option, no? So option 2 seems less likely than option 1. However, a priori, option 3 seems even less likely, since it is very hard to understand why the capitalist elite of the U.S.A. would prefer Stalin over Hitler, certainly not enough to get involved actively on Stalin’s side.

Yet we know what happened: option 3. But why? It is pretty well established that Hitler never had any designs against the West and his war aims were in the East. In 1941, Hitler would have been delighted to make a separate peace with Churchill, thus freeing him to concentrate on smashing the Soviet Union. He hated the idea of a two-front war which had been Germany’s downfall in the previous war. No, certainly after Germany invaded the USSR, Britain was, effectively, staying in the war against Germany specifically to save the USSR, to save Stalin.

Why?

Well, the intent of this essay is not to be a lesson in World War 2 history any more than to discuss medieval astronomy. I just want to make a simple point here.

If you believe that you can explain this episode of history without any reference to the political power of world Jewry, I believe you have your work cut out for you.

I suppose few readers need it explained to them that Jewish power generally is a very major taboo. To engage in “conspiracy theories” is one thing, but to engage in “anti-semitic conspiracy theories”? Hardly the way to advance your academic career if you are an ambitious historian, eh?

So, again, just like the medieval astronomer who does not want to be branded as a heretic, you must come up with an alternative explanation that avoids the taboo. So you engage in some “Taboo Induced Tortuous Thinking”. You publish some TITT. Pass Go, collect tenure….

Now, okay, if you were up to that, and you’ve come up with your TITT explanation of why Britain and the U.S. helped Joe Stalin in his hour of need, it’s time for the next exercise in TITT and… boy, it’s a doozy:

Explain how, some 60 years later, the same countries basically, America and Britain, got embroiled in something called the Global War on Terror, all of these disastrous military adventures in Muslim countries — Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria…. (Actually, one should mention Iran, where they have tried but not been successful in getting something going. Yet….)

Explain how we got into this huge mess BUT:

  • WITHOUT any mention of the Jewish lobby, a.k.a. the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC, to use the term of James Petras)
  • WITHOUT any mention of false flag terrorism (specifically as a tool to manipulate public opinion in favor of the disastrous wars)

I welcome you to have a go at it, but I am pretty sure that any explanation that you come up with which fails to mention both the ZPC and false flag terrorism will be yet another example of pure TITT.

Earlier, I posed the question: given how tenuous and implausible the blowback theory of terrorism is when you examine it, why is the the left-liberal intelligentsia in the U.S.A. so committed to it? Well, I think the foregoing analysis basically answers the question. “Blowback” is a perfect example of TITT in action, Taboo Induced Tortuous Thinking. The correct explanation is taboo so there is a need to come up with an alternative. The “Blowback” theory of terrorism is a TITT but there are many other examples of TITT as well.

Doublethink, Cognitive Dissonance, and the Emperor’s New Clothes

When you reach a certain adult understanding of the world, sometimes you look back on stories you heard or read as a child with a much greater understanding. We all probably heard some version of the Hans Christian Andersen story “The Emperor’s New Clothes” in our childhood. We have the little naive child who just says: “That man is naked”. And we have the adults in the story, courtiers… sycophants… who fulsomely praise the emperor’s fine new clothes. I suppose that the idea is that the sycophants in the story know perfectly well that the king is naked but pretend that he is clothed. What I wonder nowadays is whether the courtiers, at least some of them, actually believe somehow that the king is clothed despite the fact that their own eyes tell them that he is not! In Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell introduces doublethink, the capacity of the indoctrinated person to hold contradictory views at the same time.

So, applying it to this story, doublethink would allow somebody to see a naked man right in front of him with his own two eyes and simultaneously believe — I mean sincerely believe — that he is dressed in a fine set of clothes! In light of this, I now wonder whether some of the courtiers really possess this Orwellian doublethink capability and thus believe (on some level, somehow) that the king really is wearing clothes, while others are just pretending.

In this whole doublethink/emperor’s new clothes vein, consider a video that I found quite appealing, entitled “This is an Orange”:

I later learned that the man who created that video, the late Anthony Lawson, was a retired advertising professional. It shows. In just over two minutes, he really gets to the heart of the issue. At the end, he shows the viewer an orange and basically says: “Are you going to believe somebody if they say this is an apple?” That is a rhetorical question obviously, but I guess the retort could be: “Damn right. I’ve gotten so good at doublethink that you can show me an orange and I can sincerely believe it is an apple.” (Okay, I know these people would never really say that. They aren’t that self-aware!)

The other question I posed above is whether the people pushing the “blowback” and the other TITT explanations are being consciously dishonest. This is a tough question. How many people, for example, really believe in “gender fluidity”? Do so many people sincerely believe that Bruce Jenner is really, somehow a woman? I have no idea, it’s mind-boggling. There really is this problem when you live in a society that is so utterly suffused with… drenched in… bullshit; it can be very hard to know who really believes all of it and who is just playing along. There can be massive rewards for going along with all the bullshit, and though they no longer burn people at the stake, the personal cost people pay for going against it can be very high. My own speculation is that, in most cases, somebody whose entire career in academia or as a commentator is based on espousing TITTs is never going to admit even to himself that he is basically a charlatan. That is simply too disturbing. If so, this means that many people really have mastered doublethink. The problem is that doublethink produces a lot of mental tension. In fact, there is a technical word in psychology for this: cognitive dissonance.

TITT Monger Tactics (TMTs)

Now, regardless of whether they are being consciously dishonest or really have mastered Orwellian doublethink, the various intellectual gatekeepers, the TITT mongers, do not debate in an intellectually honest manner. Their discourse is invariably chock full of all manner of illegitimate argumentation: straw men, arguments from ignorance, you name it. Especially question-begging. They just constantly assume as a given the proposition that they need to demonstrate.

The basic problem they have is that they are espousing an explanation of events that does not really fit the available facts. Not only that, but there is usually a competing explanation (the taboo explanation like the earth going round the sun) that does fit the facts. In my last article, I wrote a section about how the most basic HIQI approach to defending ridiculous stories (WOP, Wings on Pigs narratives) is that they simply never cede the initiative. So there is always an onus on you to respond to them, but they never have to respond to you. I got a fair bit of positive feedback about that and I think that it is maybe the most practically useful part of the article.

As infuriating as it is, one should probably not take it too personally. When somebody is up bullshit creek without a paddle, they must resort to illegitimate tactics. They have no other option. So, as a public service, it could be useful to outline the basic tactics they use. Also, I find it useful, just for myself, to sit down and delineate it all.

So, let’s look at it from their point of view. If you are committed to your TITTs, you will typically resort to a set of basic tactics. These, we can call “TITT Monger Tactics” or TMTs for short:

  1. Guard the Gate! Suppress or disallow the competing explanation that actually does explain the facts.
  2. The Memory Hole. Suppress or ignore the facts that do not conform to your explanation.
  3. Coincidence Theory. Also Lower the Bar. Recognize the facts that do not fit your theory but attribute it all to “coincidence”. What you will typically need to do is to “lower the bar” such that you no longer need to prove that your theory is true, just that it is possible.
  4. Blowhard Tactics. This is a grab-all category, a varied repertoire of bullying methods — pseudo-intellectual browbeating, hyper-emotionalism… Also, never concede a debating point.

The first tactic above, guard the gate, is self-explanatory. Actually, it’s not really a debating tactic per se; you just don’t let the other people into the debate. Typically, you just say that’s a “conspiracy theory” and it’s like: “We’re a respectable venue, we don’t discuss conspiracy theories here!” Well, if they do discuss a so-called “conspiracy theory”, it’s some sort of hit piece in which a straw-man version of the theory is presented and then lampooned. The actual independent researchers (whom they call “conspiracy theorists”) will never be allowed to present and defend their case in an open, intellectually honest setting.

The next TMT, the memory hole, comes from Orwell of course. The protagonist of Nineteen Eighty-Four, Winston Smith, works in the Ministry of Truth (sic) and when he comes across some item, like a photo or news clipping that contains one of these pesky facts that do not support the current official dogma, it goes down the memory hole. I think the single most glaring example in recent history of this is the collapse of the third building, WTC7, on the day of 9/11. How do they explain the fact that a third building collapsed into its own footprint and was definitely not hit by a plane? The most important component of the establishment strategy is simply to suppress the fact, just never mention it. In fact, the 9/11 Commission issued a report and simply never mentioned the third building.

Another example of the memory hole in action is when the coup in Ukraine against the constitutional, elected government, is presented as some sort of popular revolution. People who depend solely on Western mainstream media for their information are not likely to know about this:

Yes, two American functionaries discussing who will form the next Ukrainian government after the U.S. instigated armed coup popular revolution.

In this vein, “doublethink” (again from Orwell) can be understood as a fallback. Let’s say some pesky little fact, like the above video, pops out of the “memory hole” and you are confronted with it. (Poor little things, they must hate it when that happens.) Now, if you are one of these TITT mongers, obviously you never concede that this pesky little fact refutes your TITT. For example, in this case, the TITT you would be embracing is that there was a popular revolution in Ukraine and that the new government was put in there by the Ukrainian people. Say you are shown the above video, two unelected American officials deciding who will be in the next Ukrainian government, with no input from any Ukrainian. Of course, you will never admit that it is what is clearly is, proof that “Yatz” is an American-installed puppet leader of a puppet regime. No, you just keep hanging onto the TITT. When shown the orange, you maintain that it is an apple. Maybe you can give way a tiny bit to appear reasonable. “Okay, I know it looks a little bit like an orange, and yeah, I can see why an uneducated person such as yourself would be duped into thinking that it is, but I’m a Harvard-educated expert and I can assure you that this is definitely an apple.” So, there, you make a show of being open-minded and reasonable while still maintaining the appropriate arrogant condescending tone. Anyway, you can vary the parameters on all that a fair bit, but of course, I’m sure you understand, whatever you do, you never admit that the orange actually is an orange! “The collapse of building 7 does look a tiny bit like a controlled demolition and those “conspiracy theorists” try to make a big deal out of that, but we know those people are all whack jobs….”

Coincidence Theory

The other major approach to pesky facts is coincidence theory; you explain away the pesky fact by saying that it is some sort of “coincidence”. Well, of course, what that really means is that your TITT offers no explanation of the fact. Now, in a normal, non-corrupted intellectual process, if a theory doesn’t fit the facts and another theory does, you eventually must abandon the first theory in favor of the second one. But that doesn’t happen here. (Surprise, surprise…) No, if you’re committed to your TITT — “blowback” or “lone nut gunman who self-radicalized” — you never let go of it. But you do have a problem. What you need to do now is you need to drastically lower the bar. Rather than having to prove that your theory, your TITT, is true — or even likely — you only need argue that it is within the limits of the possible. That’s a great trick because all kinds of utterly far-fetched things are still possible. For example, if I told you that a monkey banged away at a keyboard randomly and produced a Shakespeare sonnet, you would (quite reasonably) say that this is impossible. But no! It’s not absolutely impossible! So in a mode of absolute logical rigor, we cannot say it is impossible. The problem is that the probability, while not a true absolute zero, is so infinitesimal that, in terms of everyday common-sense use of language, it is perfectly reasonable to say that this is simply impossible!

So if your TITT, to be viable, requires some event of a very low order of probability, you simply argue that it is possible, i.e. it is not absolutely impossible….

So…. therefore it happened.

(Did you catch the sleight of hand there?)

And then you dance your victory dance, chant your victory chant: “I really showed those conspiracy theorists, kicked their asses!

The classic example of “lowering the bar” would surely be the “single bullet theory”, which is part of the Warren Commission report on the assassination of President Kennedy. The JFK research community tends to call this the “magic bullet theory”, to emphasize the far-fetched nature of the story, one bullet causing seven different wounds on two men.

In any case, this “single/magic bullet theory”, proposed by an ambitious young lawyer by the name of Arlen Specter, is really an archetypal TITT. The task of the Warren Commission was to issue a report saying there was only one shooter, Lee Harvey Oswald, who was acting alone. They had some thorny problems though. Oswald’s alleged murder weapon was a cheap Italian-made WW2 surplus bolt action rifle. Given the very short window of time, Oswald could only have fired at most three shots (and even that is in dispute) yet they had to explain eight wounds on two different men, Kennedy and John Connally. The utterly obvious explanation is that, in fact, there were other people shooting. However, that is the theory that could not be admitted, it’s the taboo, thus the need for this very contrived explanation, the TITT, the magic bullet theory.

Now, I do not know offhand precisely how unlikely the magic bullet story is — assuming that it even is possible. However, I think it is quite safe to say that it is pretty damned unlikely — sufficiently unlikely that a reasonable, honest person, given the available facts, would conclude that Oswald could not have acted alone. What you’ll notice when you look at the arguments of people who defend the Warren Commission story is that they have set the bar very low for themselves. They don’t even try to argue that the single bullet theory is particularly likely, or that it is more likely than the alternative theory of more than one shooter. They simply set out to argue that it is possible. Nothing more. It’s possible, therefore it happened, so I win the argument…. And, of course, you should know that, not only do they set the bar very low for themselves, but they also set the bar impossibly high for anybody on the other side of the debate.

With so many of these deep events, they are running a drill of the event on the same day. If this were a crime mystery from Agatha Christie, surely something like this would be a very big clue. For example, with the Sandy Hook shooting, Adam Lanza (for no obvious reason) decides to get a gun and shoot his momma and then go to the nearest primary school and shoot a bunch of cute little kids. On the very same day, they are running a “live shooter drill” which is a simulacrum of the event that actually happens. This was also the case with 9/11. The actual attacks coincided with large-scale drills in which a scenario being drilled is multiple plane hijackings.

Here is an article I came across a couple of years ago and I think I belly laughed when I read it.

https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/08/12/terror-attacks-and-drills/

The author of the article, one Mike Rothschild, outlines a large number of cases in which a terrorist attack coincides with a drill, at a level that it is beyond belief that this is a pure coincidence, and then argues that the so-called “conspiracy theorists” are crazy because they do not accept that all this is just a coincidence. It’s a funny article because the author seems so oblivious to the fact that what he has written refutes itself! In any case, it’s the same sort of thing. The rock-solid chain of reasoning goes something like this: “It is possible that the conjunction of drills and real events is a coincidence, therefore it is, therefore people who suggest otherwise are crazy.”


Blowhard Tactics

What I call blowhard tactics is really a set of different things. I already outlined some of them in my previous essay. One is simply never relinquishing the initiative. Now, any game or sport with formalized rules is structured in a fair manner. Consider tennis. The serve (the initiative) alternates: if I play a tennis match with you, and in this game, I am the one serving, then the next game, you serve. Well, needless to say, to the people we are talking about here, a fairly structured situation like that is anathema. They need to play a rigged game. So, for them, it’s more like a tennis match in which they always get to serve, and even if their opponent executes a perfect return of serve, they don’t recognize any need to respond to that. They just grab another ball and serve again and never concede the previous point. Actually, this is what characterizes the blowhard tactics in a debate generally speaking: never, ever concede a point. Like so:

Monty Python meant this as a comedy skit, but little did they know that it would prove to be invaluable training material for participants on Sunday morning talk shows.

Actually, thinking of Sunday morning talk shows, this immediately brings to mind another major blowhard tactic, the resort to hyper-emotionalism. Basically, you affect that you are infuriated at the person who brings up whatever uncomfortable fact. For example, somebody asks legitimate questions about 9/11 and you angrily claim that they are dishonoring the memory of the victims of that day. Don’t concern yourself that it doesn’t make any sense. (Does it have to? Does it make sense to say that an orange is an apple?) The idea is that if somebody’s brother or best friend died in some murky incident, then a person who investigates and tries to get to the bottom of what happened is dishonoring their loved one’s memory. Or, conversely, the people who are trying to cover up the circumstances of the death of one’s spouse or family member are honoring them?! Go figure that one out.

The key thing to understand here is that if you can say something, even something nonsensical, with enough emotional intensity, it somehow becomes convincing — for weak-minded people, I suppose, but that is most people and is good enough. They’ll tell you as much in any sales training course: emotional intensity sells… excitement… So this is well understood by sales people. It is less well understood by bookish, intellectual types.

Counter-Tactics, Turning the Tables, Fighting Fire with Fire

While I think it is already somewhat empowering to outline all the illegitimate tactics these people use, the real question is now how to counter this. I don’t presume to have all the answers. It’s easier to say what not to do than what to do. The old adage that the best defense is a good offense has a real core of truth to it. As I said in my previous essay, regardless of the game or contest, a passive, reactive stance is almost never a winning strategy — in any activity. Another way of putting this is that we must be on the lookout as to how to seize the initiative — to turn the tables. What this amounts to, I think, is not accepting the preset framing of the issue and finding the appropriate counter-framing.

Take the JFK assassination, which is really the canonical “conspiracy”. After all, the whole weaponized “conspiracy theory” construct was created by the CIA as part of the subsequent cover-up. What has happened is that they have managed to create such a stigma around the term “conspiracy” that, as I point out earlier, we probably should do our best to avoid using the very word — just like we avoid using “gay” or “queer” for their original meanings.

One does have to hand it to them. They really have created a bizarro inverted world. A HIQI can fall for any bullshit and there is really no attached stigma. He can believe in the magic bullet that caused seven wounds on two people. He can find it perfectly normal that a reporter announces the collapse of a steel-framed skyscraper (from fire) before it happens. He can believe that cartoon characters portrayed by actors, like Jihadi John and Jihadi Joseph, are real people. He can fall for any crude hoax and nobody questions his sanity. But if you say that there was a “conspiracy” to kill Kennedy (when there obviously was) then you are crazy. Go figure…

I guess the perceptive reader will have noticed that I have invented some rather… well… silly sounding terminology. The High IQ Idiot, the HIQI… or, a Taboo Induced Tortuous Theory, i.e. a TITT. And saying that somebody who espouses such theories however badly they fit the facts is “grasping TITTs”. This is not just sophomoric humor (though, okay, there is a bit of that) but rather, an attempt to turn the tables. They say: “You’re crazy, you believe in conspiracies”. Now we can say: “Get real, you HIQIs. Let go of the TITTs.” So, yes, I am very consciously inventing terminology to cast these people in a ridiculous light. If they are going to have these question-begging magical incantations, like “conspiracy theory” to smear us as crazy for telling the truth, then it’s high time we fight fire with fire. Rather than deal with the truth, that these are Deep State false flag operations, they invent these pathetic silly theories like “blowback”. To call their silly explanations TITTs and refer to these people as “TITT mongers” seems right and proper to me. Who knows? Maybe other people feel the same way and my terminology will catch on.

Reclaiming Reality


In my last essay, I started with the Matrix, and developed the idea of the Roger Rabbit mental world, in which cartoons are superimposed on reality. In this essay, I started by riffing on George Orwell and ended up developing the idea of magical incantations and TITT. Somehow this reminds me of the proverb of the blind men and the elephant. Are we not all blind men groping at the same creature and reporting different things? Or finding different terms to describe the same thing? There is Orwell with “doublethink” and the “memory hole”. Ron Unz refers to “American Pravda”. Here I am with Roger Rabbit narratives and Taboo Induced Tortuous Theories. Well, hey, there is nothing wrong with having more than one term to refer to roughly the same thing — slime, ooze, goo… twaddle, nonsense, bullshit, bollocks… Whether you call it the Matrix or the Roger Rabbit mental world, or American Pravda, there is this feeling of a need to reclaim reality.

We live in a world of great specialization. Given the vastness of human knowledge at this point in time, few people can have expert domain knowledge in more than one or two fields. The optimal career strategy for most people (assuming they have the capacity and the follow-through) is to develop deep expertise in some fairly narrow field. This means that, when it comes to anything outside that narrow field in which you are a specialist, you would defer to the corresponding experts in that domain. In principle, that sounds right, but as we see, there really is a need to be able to detect bullshit, to be able to discern when the alleged experts are bullshitting you. But how can you tell if you are not an expert in the relevant field (or fields)?

For example, suppose we are watching CNN and some general or expert on military affairs is on there explaining how they had to incinerate some isolated village in the Hindu Kush, using a drone or cruise missile or whatever…. in order to defend America. I ask you: do we need domain expertise to know that this is absolute bullshit?! (Criminally insane bullshit to boot…)

Or suppose some economist from Harvard or some place comes on espousing “austerity economics”, telling us, essentially, that the way a country gets rich is by impoverishing itself. Can a non-specialist, a generalist, figure out that the prestigious professor is, in fact, talking shit?

Obviously, I think the answer to the above two questions is yes. Yes, I believe that, armed with only generalist knowledge and a certain baseline BDQ level, we can state that the aforementioned “experts” are full of shit. (Shout after me: Yes, we can!) It occurs to me that some of what I’m talking about here, the HIQI/BDQ concept, is reclaiming the ability of the generalist to come to some understanding of the world. We need not (and must not) be so utterly defenseless against all this pompous bullshit.

If we were to form a new 12-step group, HIQIs anonymous, the redemption of the chronic HIQI must start with some first step, and what would that be? Well, I guess like with Alcoholics Anonymous, it would start with a recognition of the problem.

HIQI: Hi, my name is Jon and I’m a HIQI.

Group: Hi, Jon. (in unison)

HIQI: You know, I used to read the New York Times every morning.

Group: OMG! (collective gasp)

HIQI: Yeah, and I believed every word of it.

Group: (another collective gasp)

HIQI: Yep, I ate up all that shit with a spoon — every morning with my corn flakes. etcetera, etecetera

Step by step. Reclaim reality. There are things one can know without being a specialist. Pigs cannot fly. If a naked man is standing in front of you, you believe what you see. If somebody tries to tell you otherwise, he’s bullshitting you. If somebody tries to tell you that an orange is an apple, it doesn’t matter how many phD’s he’s got, he’s talking shit… Just tentatively, these might be some initial steps towards reclaiming reality.

When they show you something that is basically a cartoon and ask you to accept that this is real, you do not need domain expertise to reject it. This is for a very simple reason: a grownup knows that the real world ain’t a cartoon. And getting back to a main theme of this essay, TITT issue, a theory is a TITT if the only reason for its existence is to avoid a taboo, i.e. it’s taboo-induced. So another rule could be:

If you can see that something is a TITT, then you don’t need specialized domain knowledge to know that the theory is not correct.

Or, to put it more succintly, TITTs are always bullshit. (A Brit would say that TITTs are always bollocks, which, I know doesn’t make a lot of sense to the uninitiated, but never mind…)

Concluding Remarks

I must make a point about one aspect of this essay. I’m quite aware that I broke a major taboo by alluding to the revisionist history of the Second World War. Asking people to reconsider the conventional analysis of WW2 is akin to heresy. Well, actually, it is not akin to heresy. It is heresy! The History Channel Atlanticist version of WW2 is, to all intents and purposes, a secular religion at this point in time.

Arguably, I did not have to go there at all. There are so many examples of what I call Taboo Induced Tortuous Thinking, TITT, that I did not need to use this one. But, finally, I think I did have to go there because it makes no sense to decry all these taboos and then consciously skirt around one, especially when it is the biggest taboo of them all.

Now, if you want to attack what I am saying, feel free. However, I would dissuade you from one particular line of attack (that I already anticipate). I anticipate people asking me (quite aggressively) why I think I am such an expert on the Second World War. Since I anticipate the question, I answer it in advance.

No, I do not consider myself very knowledgeable about WW2. In fact, many people who comment on this very website have a much more detailed knowledge of the history of that period. But, you see, that is a completely invalid critique of my point in this article. My first example of what I call TITT was the medieval astronomer. Was I implying at all that I myself have any expertise in astronomy? No, actually, I was implying the opposite! I was saying that, even given my lack of expertise, I can say with absolute confidence that an explanation of the solar eclipse that is based on the sun going round the earth cannot be correct.

So, if your line of attack is that I am not an expert in WW2 history, or that I lack expertise in whatever other thing, then you might as well save us both the bother. In fact, such a critique would mean that you don’t understand what I am saying. You see, I’m not claiming any particular expertise in anything. I am reclaiming the ability of the generalist, with a certain level of BDQ, to come to some understanding of the world. We have to stop being so defenseless against all the bullshit, stop being such HIQIs. Truth told, all the right/left sorts of debates are starting to bore me. I now tend to believe that the central front in the battle for the future is…. Roger Rabbit!!!

Now, when it comes to all these various big honking issues — capitalism versus socialism, religion versus secularism, ethno-nationalism versus multiculturalism, right to bear arms versus gun control, spank your kids or don’t spank your kids… — I don’t mean that these various debates are not important. The problem is that I have this growing, gnawing sense that one cannot really debate these things or anything else if one does not escape from the Roger Rabbit mental universe. In other words, when people end up allowing the various debates to be framed for them by the MSM via Roger Rabbit narratives, the situation is hopeless from the get-go. Whatever your mix of views on these issues, if you insist on believing in cartoons, you can really only be part of the problem, not any solution. Not to say that taking the red pill or putting on the sunglasses solves things on its own. It’s not sufficient, but it is a necessary initial step.

On or around September 11 of every year, we have articles that come out, especially in the left-liberal media, decrying what has happened since that fateful day over a decade ago. What has become of the country: the loss of basic constitutional freedoms, the perpetual paranoia and state of warfare, the criminality, the wars, the torture… But such articles will still pretend that the official Roger Rabbit narrative is true — the bearded religious fanatic in the cave and the nineteen suicide hijackers.

Well, guys, if you really care so much, really care — I mean care more about it than about your career in the commentariat — maybe it’s time to let go of all the TITTs and grow yourselves a pair of bollocks.

Fan mail (as well as hate mail) can be directed to revusky at gmail.

 
The American Pravda Series
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Kiza says:

    Dear Jonathan, let us simplify the long story a bit – all what you are describing is the Standard Toolbox of Societal Control that the “elite” uses on the population. This toolbox has been in development at least since the farao Ramsis took this name (son of Ra, the god protecting Egypt) to solidify his control over the population, or since the print media were invented, not to mention radio and TV. Thus, it is not a big deal really: if you do not believe in a free lunch, why do you believe in free news? Why would anyone give you the news without a catch and for free? Theoretically speaking, someone may have even died in some war zone to produce news and you are getting it for free sitting on a sofa.

    Once one adopts the axiom: news is lies, then one becomes intellectually free. Easy! But the road to physical freedom is much more difficult and dangerous.

    Regarding the use and abuse of language by TPTB, let me add the word “humanitarian” to your collection. In the countries which have been bombed by the US, British & Co R2P interventionists, this word has acquired a new meaning. Here is Merriam-Webster first: “a person promoting human welfare and social reform”. In its new meaning humanitarian means a high level trickster, a truly skillful con artist, someone to be admired for the complete opposition of words and actions, someone who has achieved a new level of human existence in which words are pure means to an end and nothing else.

    Thank you for the great essay.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Sorry, I forgot to mention my sub-axiom of intellectual freedom: most of history is lies/bullshit/bollocks (very close to all, but the time distance to events softens up the interests of TPTB and makes bullshit/bollocks slightly less pronounced). Yet, it is safe to take approach: all of history is BS.

    On another matter, I enjoyed the Nulland-Pyatt exchange in which they disqualify Klitschko due to his "troubles in the marriage", whilst it is really because Klitschko is a German/EU candidate for post-coup Ukraine. The Germans got virtual zero = nothing out of the coup, the winner took it all!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/a-framework-for-reclaiming-reality/#comment-1421194
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Kiza says:
    @Kiza
    Dear Jonathan, let us simplify the long story a bit - all what you are describing is the Standard Toolbox of Societal Control that the "elite" uses on the population. This toolbox has been in development at least since the farao Ramsis took this name (son of Ra, the god protecting Egypt) to solidify his control over the population, or since the print media were invented, not to mention radio and TV. Thus, it is not a big deal really: if you do not believe in a free lunch, why do you believe in free news? Why would anyone give you the news without a catch and for free? Theoretically speaking, someone may have even died in some war zone to produce news and you are getting it for free sitting on a sofa.

    Once one adopts the axiom: news is lies, then one becomes intellectually free. Easy! But the road to physical freedom is much more difficult and dangerous.

    Regarding the use and abuse of language by TPTB, let me add the word "humanitarian" to your collection. In the countries which have been bombed by the US, British & Co R2P interventionists, this word has acquired a new meaning. Here is Merriam-Webster first: "a person promoting human welfare and social reform". In its new meaning humanitarian means a high level trickster, a truly skillful con artist, someone to be admired for the complete opposition of words and actions, someone who has achieved a new level of human existence in which words are pure means to an end and nothing else.

    Thank you for the great essay.

    Sorry, I forgot to mention my sub-axiom of intellectual freedom: most of history is lies/bullshit/bollocks (very close to all, but the time distance to events softens up the interests of TPTB and makes bullshit/bollocks slightly less pronounced). Yet, it is safe to take approach: all of history is BS.

    On another matter, I enjoyed the Nulland-Pyatt exchange in which they disqualify Klitschko due to his “troubles in the marriage”, whilst it is really because Klitschko is a German/EU candidate for post-coup Ukraine. The Germans got virtual zero = nothing out of the coup, the winner took it all!

    Read More
  3. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Great article.

    My favorite TITT currently circulating is that the rise of Trump “is a rebellion against Washington.” It’s a rebellion against the MSM, including Fox, and just about everyone knows it. Can’t say it!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    Disgree.
    It's a revolt against both the political filth AND their corporate media whores.
  4. There’s also the possibility that Bullshit orthodoxy beliefs are useful as tribal markers. No one is going to sign on for something obviously false, unless it’s a qualifier for belonging to the group. Whether this is done intentionally to weed out dissenters from the group, or if the bullshit creeps in and exposes dissenters naturally, I couldn’t say. However, the usefulness of a bullshit orthodoxy belief is more useful than the truth because the objective truth is the same for everyone. Even if one tribe happens on objective truth as a tribal marker, none of the other tribes can use it, so everyone else ends up with bullshit markers to differentiate themselves.

    All well and good, but [all credit to Spandrell], the problem is that humans are status signalling machines, and easily fall into status signalling spirals, whereby new bullshit markers that show your higher status are continuously created until the tribe is drowning in bullshit.

    The cynical take of the Emperor’s Clothes is that the emperor notes everyone who says he is naked and burns them at the stake as heretics.

    Life is tough without a tribe-you don’t want to be cast out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    The cynical take of the Emperor’s Clothes is that the emperor notes everyone who says he is naked and burns them at the stake as heretics.
     
    Yeah, but probably not the emperor himself (who would typically just be an affable figurehead) but the regime's secret police.

    Though, the other thing, I think about this is, I wonder which is more sinister, an explicit Orwellian Thought Police or there is no need for the Thought Police, because people have internalized it. They are so indoctrinated that they police their own thoughts...

    , @No_0ne
    I would say that the idea that improbable beliefs are a tribal marker is more than a possibilty-- it's a near-certainty. The modern progressive establishment works on a system that is very similar to a cult of personality in how it functions, only it's based on an ever-"progressing" set of beliefs that takes on a independent life of its own.

    When a dictator first comes to power, it may be enough to acknowledge his leadership and to swear allegiance to him. Later on in the regime, after a few years of competing for status (and avoiding the attentions of the secret police) by making more and more outlandish declarations of loyalty to the ruler and faith in the his greatness, one may have to attest to a belief that, say, Kim Jong Il is the best basketball player in the world, and a literal god on earth, to be considered a minimally loyal citizen.

    The dominant progressive political narrative today operates in much the same way. You may start out merely having to believe that people should be equal before the law, then "progress" to believing that, in some real, physical sense, women are the same as men, and blacks the same as whites... before you know it, if you don't swear up and down that a man who puts on a dress and pretends to be a woman, is really a woman, you're out of the club.

    The advantage of the personality cult attached to an individual ruler is that it is self-limiting. Sooner or later, the ruler dies, and the status signaling/ virtue signaling spiral resets. There does not appear to be any such natural limit to the progressive ratchet effect short of societal collapse.
    , @myname1sl1nk
    Which is all aimed at power grabbing, both in-tribe and inter-tribally, is it not?

    Sociological drive is not all what's there to the instinct towards lie-marrying and lie-craft, though.
  5. Tom Welsh says:

    “…throughout the entire period of the British empire, English cops felt no need to even carry a firearm”.

    Better still, in the period 1900-10 there were a few incidents when the British police had to deal, unexpectedly, with armed criminals or terrorists. Do you know what they did? They asked passing gentlemen – ordinary members of the public – for the loan of their guns! Naturally the gentlemen obliged, the police used their guns as needed, after which they were handed back with thanks but without ceremony.

    Isn’t that wonderful? Unarmed police (although they did have heavy truncheons), and armed citizens!

    Read More
  6. libtard says:

    It seems there’s just enough BDQ in your (Jonathan’s) arguments to qualify you as an HIQI.

    For example, “blowbacks”. You wonder why there were no “deep” events of this nature during the “entire period of the British empire” — and therefore the term blowback couldn’t have been invented then. Conveniently forgetting the IRA are you? And never taking into account the ease of travel since the sun set on Her Majesty’s Union Jack, or the greater size of the immigrant populations in modern urban centers! Nor do you mention the increased ease of preparing blowback events with weapons that cause massive casualties, which would have been much more difficult to obtain for would-be out-for-revenge “terrorists” in the waning days of the British empire.

    Yes you do mention the Vietnamese populations in the US, but it seems hardly likely that this community would be vengeful for the bombing of villages and the killing of innocents. The stateside Vietnamese population only became significant during the fall of the South, and most of the “boat people” who arrived here were fleeing from the expected communist takeover, and were not imbued with an ideology of total war against the foreign occupier of their homelands. So why would you expect any blowback from them?

    Then for WW2, you describe the conventional narrative as starting from 22 June 1941. This is total bollocks. It makes your 3 “options” look ridiculous — as if the US corporate elite’s only concern about the war had to do with the survival (or not) of the Soviet Union. And how do you explain the option 3 you claim was behind US and British “help” for Joe Stalin? By resorting to one of the most tried-and-true (but actually false) myths about Jewish political power being responsible for this. ZPC may be a real phenomenon in the Iraq war and the current interventions in the Middle East, but you do not provide one iota of supporting evidence for this influencing US/British policies in WW2. Talk about TITT all you want. Where’s the remedial education you said was needed?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    ...most of the “boat people” who arrived here were fleeing from the expected communist takeover, and were not imbued with an ideology of total war against the foreign occupier of their homelands.
     
    What you write above largely refutes itself. You're engaging in a straw man. You write "most of the boat people were....". Well, as a proportion of any large refugee population, the number who would be terrorists is always going to be very small. What needs to be explained is not that "most of" the people were not terrorists. That should actually go without saying. It's that none of them were.

    Throughout the cold war, there were many defectors from the Soviet bloc who were political dissidents in their country of origin. Probably most were genuine political dissidents. However, it is also clear that the Soviet government took advantage of the situation to plant spies in the West. So, while most of the defectors were genuine political dissidents, some were not.

    If there had been an underground group of Vietnamese who wanted to get revenge by sending agents to the U.S. who could then mount terrorist attacks, some of them could have got into the U.S. by representing that they were political refugees.

    But, you see, all this seems to be a counterfactual because, it appears, no such Vietnamese group with a “blowback terrorism” agenda seems to have ever existed! AND THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT!

    They bombed the shit out these countries. Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos. In the most utterly vicious and ruthless manner. And there was never a single blowback terrorism event in the U.S. Not one.


    So why would you expect any blowback from them?
     
    Well, generally speaking, I don't expect any blowback, because I do not find it to be a very credible explanation of events. No, it's obviously up to people who do believe in the blowback phenomenon to explain why there was no blowback in this and other such cases.

    But, look, this could just go on in circles. If you say, contrary to what I believe, that blowback is an important phenomenon, then why don't you just tell us what are the major terrorist acts of recent history (or history generally) that you are sure are examples of blowback?

    Then we could examine them. Just to be arguing in the most general, handwaving kind of way about whether the phenomenon exists likely cant get anywhere. So just list what was blowback. Was 9/11 blowback? Was 7/7 in London blowback? What about this thing in San Bernardino recently? What about these recent events in Paris and Brussels?

    , @Jonathan Revusky

    Then for WW2, you describe the conventional narrative as starting from 22 June 1941. This is total bollocks.
     
    Well, you're trying to make hay with something that I, of course, never said. I never said that WW2 started on 22 June 1941. I simply stated that was the date that Germany invaded the USSR, nothing more nothing less. There is really nothing to take issue with there. That is definitely an established historical fact...

    I went straight to that point in time because it was the key point I wanted to examine to illustrate a certain idea. There are other examples I could have chosen, and in that case, I would have gone straight to the relevant point in time. In no case would that mean that I am saying that history began at that point and nothing happened before then!

    It makes your 3 “options” look ridiculous — as if the US corporate elite’s only concern about the war had to do with the survival (or not) of the Soviet Union.
     
    To be clear, I never stated in the essay that I had all the answers to this. I simply stated that option 3 was rather surprising. Why would the US corporate elite be at all interested in saving the Soviet Union?

    I simply posed the question. Do you have an answer?

    By resorting to one of the most tried-and-true (but actually false) myths about Jewish political power being responsible for this.
     
    Well, okay, this is your claim. So, you say Jewish political power had absolutely nothing to do with this episode of history. Fine. Then answer the question.

    Why did Britain and the U.S. pull out all the stops to help Joe Stalin in his hour of need?

    Specifically, what national interest was the U.S. pursuing by taking this course? Also, in July of 1941, say, what percentage of the U.S. population, approximately, do you reckon, if asked, would have supported a policy of intervening in the war on the side of the USSR?

    ZPC may be a real phenomenon in the Iraq war and the current interventions in the Middle East, but you do not provide one iota of supporting evidence for this influencing US/British policies in WW2.
     
    Hmm, interesting. You say "ZPC may be a... in the Iraq war..". You mean you're not sure?

    But... okay, you accept that it "might" be. ZPC might be a factor in the mess in Iraq. Might be... i.e. you are unsure but you are open to the possibility. (I'm not putting any words in your mouth. I take your words at face value.)

    Okay, so why are you open to the possibility that the ZPC influenced U.S. foreign policy in the early 2000's but are totally certain that nothing similar happened in the early 1940's?

    And, moreover, if the ZPC was not a factor in this, then, what was the main causal factor that impelled the U.S. to want to get in the war on the side of Stalin?
    , @utu
    "By resorting to one of the most tried-and-true (but actually false) myths about Jewish political power being responsible for this."

    (1) Charles Lindberg. Des Moines Speech: Delivered in Des Moines, Iowa, on September 11, 1941.

    "The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration."

    "I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war."

    (2) Polish Ambassador at Washington, Count Jerzy Potocki, in a report to the Polish Foreign Office, dated January 12, 1939

    "Public opinion in America nowadays expresses itself in an increasing hatred of everything . . . connected with National Socialism. Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish hands . . . [W]hen bearing public ignorance in mind, their propaganda is so effective that people here have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe . . . It is interesting to observe that this carefully thought-out campaign -- which is primarily conducted against National Socialism -- no reference at all is made to Soviet Russia. If that country is mentioned, it is referred to in a friendly manner and people are given the impression that Soviet Russia is part of the democratic group of countries."

    "I]ndividual Jewish intellectuals such as Bernard Baruch, Lehman, Governor of New York State, Felix Frankfurter, the newly appointed Supreme Court Judge, Morgenthau, the Financial Secretary, and other well-known personal friends of Roosevelt have taken a prominent part in this campaign of hatred. All of them want the President to become the protagonist of human liberty, religious freedom and the right of free speech . . .

    This particular group of people, who are all in highly placed American official positions and who are desirous of being representatives of 'true Americanism', and as 'Champions of Democracy', are, in point of fact, linked with international Jewry by ties incapable of being torn asunder.

    For international Jewry -- so intimately concerned with the interests of its own race -- President Roosevelt's 'ideal' role as a champion of human rights was indeed a godsend. In this way Jewry was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike camps. The whole problem is being tackled in a most mysterious manner. Roosevelt has been given the power to enable him to enliven American foreign policy and at the same time to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for."
  7. You totally lost me with your naive dismissal of blowback based in part on a very superficial interpretation about a (alleged) lack of terrorist reprisals in the countries of colonial origin during the colonial era. VERY briefly: one factor in the use of terrorism is its value as a media tool. How do you suppose that would have worked in the 18th century? How do you know people didn’t try? There was far less access to weapons and travel, and even the concept of attacked OVER THERE may not have even occurred to them for a problem OVER HERE. How to make a bomb? The disparity of power? Fast-forwarding to today with our global communication, we’ve seen many interviews with people who’ve reported the degree of revenge-seeking that will dominate the rest of their lives and the anger that our actions inspire in people around the world. The ignorance of the argument is almost painful and the refutation is clear, I can’t even be bothered to waste my time fleshing it out. I’ll just move on to the plenty of other authors who are engaging and deserving of my time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rudel
    Your unexamined underlying assumption that a "terrorist attack" somehow directly causes widespread media coverage through some sort of automatic mechanical process, that does not rely on human judgement or intervention is, as the progs say, "problematic." Or are you maintaining that "terrorists" control the media? Perhaps you might consider the possibility that widespread coverage of a "terrorist attack" occurs because some person or persons in a position of ownership or control of the media outlets in question wanted it to? In which case it served their purposes, rather than (or in addition to) those of the terrorists.

    This can be a difficult concept to accept for those who still cling to the myth of "objective" media, granted. There will always be more potential stories out there than the number that get covered. Someone chooses which stories to cover, and what slant to give them. Every article you read; every news item on the teevee, is there because someone in a position of power wanted it to be there, and covered from that angle/ pushing that narrative.

    How many dead in the Congo civil war? How many times have you seen that on TV?
  8. TheJester says:

    People who believe in free markets and do not believe in a Deep State governing virtually all so-called Western democracies are naive and unschooled in human history and current events. They’ve missed out on the dynamics that created the world they live in and are reshaping that world every day of their lives. They live in a world of illusion.

    But then, our schools and universities from high school through graduate school teach that markets are free and the government in Washington is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” They never were. (Did anyone notice that Lincoln had suspended the Constitution, arrested his political opponents, and ruled via presidential decree when he uttered those notable words?)

    How would I know? Try a lifetime of self-education … READING, STUDYING, and THINKING THROUGH the issues in community forums such as the Unz Review. The truth is out there. It takes time and patience to find it.

    Read More
  9. iffen says:

    Conspiracy aficionados are usually intelligent analytical types. They want everything (the entire kaleidoscope) to “fit” together in a rational manner. They tend to dismiss the mainspring of human and societal behavior (emotions) because they guard against their own emotions when they are constructing their Rube Goldberg scenarios that purport to explain historical and political events. They dismiss hate, religion, passion and most of all stupidity and incompetence in their constructs of the players involved in their chosen conspiracy events. There are no loose ends, no unexplained occurrences, no screw-ups, no accidents, no mistakes in judgment, no double-crossers (a human specialty) in in this clockwork world, but that is not reality.

    My objection to using conspiracy theory as the cosmological turtle is that it helps to obscure the real casual factors (flawed political ideas, greed, idiocy, opportunism, etc.)

    I suspect that there may be a conspiracy to convince us that conspiracies are the cosmological turtle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    .....They want everything (the entire kaleidoscope) to “fit” together in a rational manner. They tend to dismiss the mainspring of human and societal behavior (emotions) because they guard against their own emotions when they are constructing their Rube Goldberg scenarios that purport to explain historical and political events. They dismiss hate, religion, passion and most of all stupidity and incompetence in their constructs of .....
     
    Uhh, yeah.... or, in other words, blah blah blah blah blah fuckin' blah blah....

    Dude, I wrote 9400 words above. I put some real work into that. And this is the best you can do? Like, there is absolutely nothing that you can sink your teeth into, logically or factually... nothing?? So you are reduced to emitting this kind of verbal diarrhea, no?

    What I can't quite understand is why you even bother? This is such pathetic wanker behavior that.... like, don't you have anything better to do with your time?

    They dismiss hate, religion, passion and most of all stupidity and incompetence in their constructs of the players involved in their chosen conspiracy events. There are no loose ends, no unexplained occurrences, no screw-ups, no accidents,...
     
    Yes, how terribly irrational of people to refuse to accept explanations that do not fit the available facts.

    no mistakes in judgment, no double-crossers (a human specialty) in in this clockwork world, but that is not reality.
     
    Yeah, I may not have covered this TMT. This is sort of "getting all mystical" or something. You tell people a bullshit story and if they don't believe it, it's because they are not in tune with the ineffable... inscrutable... elusive... nature of.... the interconnected... cosmic..... flying pigs...
  10. polistra says:

    Mostly valid, but you’ve got the timeline of WW2 wrong. By the time Hitler pushed into Russia, he had already taken France, and was already bombing Britain. The Allies saw Russia as a useful energy-absorber, so they helped Russia to keep the Krauts busy in the Eastern direction. And in the end it worked. Germany spent most of its troops and equipment in Russia.

    Straightforward strategy. You don’t need a deeper explanation for this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Mostly valid, but you’ve got the timeline of WW2 wrong.

     

    Uhh, no, I beg to differ. I just quickly reread the parts that I wrote above that relate to WW2 and, at no point, did I get any timeline wrong.

    Granted, I did not include the full history of WW2, but that was not the goal of the essay.

    What I did was I simply pointed out that Germany invaded the Soviet Union and both the Britain and the U.S.A. pulled out all the stops to save the Soviet Union from collapse and I posed the question: why? That does not involve getting any timeline wrong.

    In fact, it is very symptomatic of TITT explanations that the TITT mongers mess up the timeline. You'll find that event A is followed by event B and TITT mongers will imply that B caused A. If I committed any such mistake in the essay, by all means, you should tell me so, but I do not believe that I did.

    By the time Hitler pushed into Russia, he had already taken France, and was already bombing Britain.

     

    Well, frankly, the reversal of cause and effect is utterly typical of TITT argumentation, as is question-begging generally. I posed the question in the essay of why Britain remained in the war explicitly to save Stalin's ass and your explanation is that "Hitler... was already bombing Britain". Now, first of all, Hitler was bombing Britain because Churchill started bombing Germany. (Go look at the timeline.) But aside from that, Germany and Britain were bombing one another precisely because they remained at war!

    No, it is not that Britain remained at war with Germany because Germany was bombing Britain. Germany was bombing Britain because Britain chose to remain at war with Germany! This kind of reversal of logical cause and effect is utterly typical of TITT explanations of history!

    Of course, even aside from the reversal of cause and effect that you engage in (Germany bombing Britain caused Britain to remain in the war rather than the other way round) that still doesn't explain the desire of the U.S.A. to bail out the Soviets. The U.S. was, of course, not being bombed by Germany.

    Straightforward strategy. You don’t need a deeper explanation for this.
     
    LOL. Well, speak for yourself. Maybe you don't feel any need to seek a deeper explanation of these events. I do.

    The general U.S. public was led to believe that they got into a war in Afghanistan (and later Iraq) because several skyscrapers in NYC were destroyed. But that is superficial politics. The person who understands deep politics knows that the buildings were blown up in Manhattan because the U.S.A. (well, specifically a faction of anglo-zionist deep politics) wanted these wars. They needed an enabling event and 9/11 was that enabling event.

    Again, the events of 9/11 were caused by the desire (of certain people, a certain faction) to get into the wars that followed. The wars that followed were not caused by 9/11!

    Well, in short, after years, more like decades, of propagandizing, we would all do well to recognize TITTs when we see them, no?
    , @Bill Jones
    You overlook the fact that it was Britain who declared war on Germany.
    , @Heymrguda
    Yes, it makes some sense to say the west believed hitler to be a worse Threat than the USSR. But how do you explain the extent of the massive aid provided to Stalin? The amount of armor,aircraft (5000 each of P-39s andA-20s alone) plus, foodstuffs, trucks, munitions etc. was far beyond anything the USSR could have needed and continued until September 1945. If the USA and Britain were concerned only with the ussr's survival, all aid could have been terminated at the end of 1942. Even George Kennan questioned why aid continued as long as it did.
  11. alexander says:

    Hi Jonathan,

    Yeah,

    We get it.

    Some of us have gotten it for a long time.

    It is really all about power, Jonathan, if you have the power to control the narrative of “events” you have the power to control peoples behavior , how they act, what they do, and in the case of the GWOT, where the taxpayers money gets spent.

    Lets consider a very simple incident., a recent incident..like San Bernadino….. a female witness”clearly” identifies three large ,powerful (armed), white males entering…the terror incident “occurs”…..and right after, a male witness “clearly” identifies three large, powerful(armed), white males exiting…..

    Then what happens ? …..

    Several hours later a “Muslim couple” is (are) identified as the culprits and shot dead.

    Case closed.

    Everyone who examines the facts in the case, and accepts the official narrative, acknowledges that the witnesses made some form of mistake.

    As though what they think they saw, they didn’t really see.

    Nobody stops to ask what happens “if” the witnesses to the ‘terror event” were 100% accurate in what they saw.

    Reality cannot be “both” three big white guys….and a Muslim couple.

    Yet the official narrative takes over, like a movie script, with lots of guns, bombs, and internet chatter, suspicious backgrounds, and all the” ya da ya da”, and the world moves on with the Donald getting big standing O’s, for wanting to ban all Muslims from the U.S.

    It’s all about the power, Jonathan.

    Its all about the power of Fraud.

    Read More
  12. woodNfish says:

    Mr. Ravusky, I have been trying to educate people how the Left hides behind positive labels that lie about about the truth of what they are. Two of these labels are the most commonly associated with the Left: liberal and progressive. The Left is actually just the opposite: authoritarian and regressive, yet even people who should know better assign these labels to the Left.

    I would like to think your article will help in the fight to unmask the Left, but I fear it is too long for the short attention spans today, and you never mention the more obvious uses of PC such as labeling the Afghanistan and Iraqi patriots and freedom-fighters battling the US led foreign invasion of their countries as “insurgents” and “terrorists”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    I would like to think your article will help in the fight to unmask the Left,

     

    Hmm, I'm frankly puzzled by your desire to frame this as a right/left thing. The title of the essay is about "reclaiming reality" and reality just exists. It's not really right or left. In fact at the very end, I basically am saying that right/left is hardly even relevant if you're not connected with objective reality.

    Now, I grant that telling the truth straightforwardly about certain things could be interpreted as right or left. For example, if you point out that Bruce Jenner is not a woman, but rather, simply a man wearing a dress, people could say that is a right-wing statement. But, to me, it's just the truth, it's not right-wing or left-wing. To tell the truth about these Wall Street bloodsuckers is taken to be left-wing, I suppose, but to me, again, if something is true, it's not left or right. It's just true.
  13. Rurik says:

    Excellent article JR!

    and you’re very right, that the most important event of our time is 911, and this event has been used to foist Eternal War and turn us all into Palestinians- in one form or another- with check points and torture camps and assassinations and a complete evisceration of our Constitutional rights.

    The treason and singularly heinous crime on that day changed everything, and it’s stupid and meaningless to discuss if from the perspective of TITT. (the official [and ludicrous] narrative)

    I hope people will consider your points rationally and sincerely.

    Read More
  14. @polistra
    Mostly valid, but you've got the timeline of WW2 wrong. By the time Hitler pushed into Russia, he had already taken France, and was already bombing Britain. The Allies saw Russia as a useful energy-absorber, so they helped Russia to keep the Krauts busy in the Eastern direction. And in the end it worked. Germany spent most of its troops and equipment in Russia.

    Straightforward strategy. You don't need a deeper explanation for this.

    Mostly valid, but you’ve got the timeline of WW2 wrong.

    Uhh, no, I beg to differ. I just quickly reread the parts that I wrote above that relate to WW2 and, at no point, did I get any timeline wrong.

    Granted, I did not include the full history of WW2, but that was not the goal of the essay.

    What I did was I simply pointed out that Germany invaded the Soviet Union and both the Britain and the U.S.A. pulled out all the stops to save the Soviet Union from collapse and I posed the question: why? That does not involve getting any timeline wrong.

    In fact, it is very symptomatic of TITT explanations that the TITT mongers mess up the timeline. You’ll find that event A is followed by event B and TITT mongers will imply that B caused A. If I committed any such mistake in the essay, by all means, you should tell me so, but I do not believe that I did.

    By the time Hitler pushed into Russia, he had already taken France, and was already bombing Britain.

    Well, frankly, the reversal of cause and effect is utterly typical of TITT argumentation, as is question-begging generally. I posed the question in the essay of why Britain remained in the war explicitly to save Stalin’s ass and your explanation is that “Hitler… was already bombing Britain”. Now, first of all, Hitler was bombing Britain because Churchill started bombing Germany. (Go look at the timeline.) But aside from that, Germany and Britain were bombing one another precisely because they remained at war!

    No, it is not that Britain remained at war with Germany because Germany was bombing Britain. Germany was bombing Britain because Britain chose to remain at war with Germany! This kind of reversal of logical cause and effect is utterly typical of TITT explanations of history!

    Of course, even aside from the reversal of cause and effect that you engage in (Germany bombing Britain caused Britain to remain in the war rather than the other way round) that still doesn’t explain the desire of the U.S.A. to bail out the Soviets. The U.S. was, of course, not being bombed by Germany.

    Straightforward strategy. You don’t need a deeper explanation for this.

    LOL. Well, speak for yourself. Maybe you don’t feel any need to seek a deeper explanation of these events. I do.

    The general U.S. public was led to believe that they got into a war in Afghanistan (and later Iraq) because several skyscrapers in NYC were destroyed. But that is superficial politics. The person who understands deep politics knows that the buildings were blown up in Manhattan because the U.S.A. (well, specifically a faction of anglo-zionist deep politics) wanted these wars. They needed an enabling event and 9/11 was that enabling event.

    Again, the events of 9/11 were caused by the desire (of certain people, a certain faction) to get into the wars that followed. The wars that followed were not caused by 9/11!

    Well, in short, after years, more like decades, of propagandizing, we would all do well to recognize TITTs when we see them, no?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Mr. Revusky:
    Since you touch the topic of World War 2, I would like to point your attention to the series of books by former Soviet intelligence officer Vladimir Rezun, mostly known by his pen-name Victor Suvorov. The most recent (and thus updated) book is
    "The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II",
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1591148065/ , $13.19 +$3.99 S&H (used.)
    His thesis is that Stalin was preparing to the war with Germany in an extremely thorough way. His eventual goal was absorption of the whole Europe into his communist state. His tactical plan was
    to use Germany as an "Icebreaker of Revolution":
    to make Germany weaken itself and other Western countries by mutual war, and then this Icebreaker would clear the path for the whole "flotilla" of "liberating" Soviet troops, just as Baltic states Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were "liberated" in 1940. The particular edition of Suvorov's book cited above spends extra time on the role of Stalin's Comintern in the build-up of Nazi power in Germany.

    I do not have anything nontrivial to say about the rest of your article.
    Your I.f.f.U.

    , @Unapologetic White Man
    If 9/11 was not some sort of Zio-conspiracy, then Larry Silverstein is the luckiest Jew in history.
  15. Che Guava says:

    I greatly enjoyed your article.

    Have a strong recommendation for fiction, have you read The Illuminatus Trilogy by Robert Anton Wilson?

    Much is too hippy gen. for my tastes, but it flows well, to me, there are so many great scenes and good bits, it is easy to forget the hippy gen. crap aspect.

    It combines satire of Anna Rosenbaum’s Atlas Shrugged (a character sort of based on her appears on several occasion, too) with Jules Vernes 20,000 Leagues,

    The takes on the JFK assasson will have you splitting your sides laughing.

    Read More
  16. @woodNfish
    Mr. Ravusky, I have been trying to educate people how the Left hides behind positive labels that lie about about the truth of what they are. Two of these labels are the most commonly associated with the Left: liberal and progressive. The Left is actually just the opposite: authoritarian and regressive, yet even people who should know better assign these labels to the Left.

    I would like to think your article will help in the fight to unmask the Left, but I fear it is too long for the short attention spans today, and you never mention the more obvious uses of PC such as labeling the Afghanistan and Iraqi patriots and freedom-fighters battling the US led foreign invasion of their countries as "insurgents" and "terrorists".

    I would like to think your article will help in the fight to unmask the Left,

    Hmm, I’m frankly puzzled by your desire to frame this as a right/left thing. The title of the essay is about “reclaiming reality” and reality just exists. It’s not really right or left. In fact at the very end, I basically am saying that right/left is hardly even relevant if you’re not connected with objective reality.

    Now, I grant that telling the truth straightforwardly about certain things could be interpreted as right or left. For example, if you point out that Bruce Jenner is not a woman, but rather, simply a man wearing a dress, people could say that is a right-wing statement. But, to me, it’s just the truth, it’s not right-wing or left-wing. To tell the truth about these Wall Street bloodsuckers is taken to be left-wing, I suppose, but to me, again, if something is true, it’s not left or right. It’s just true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    I will agree with you that lies reside on both camps, but PC is a mainly a Leftist creation. You may counter that my examples of Iraq and Afghanistan were right wing and I will agree that is the perception, but Bush and all the other RINO neocons are nothing more than unreformed leftists as is amply documented in this blog and at VDARE. The current election has unmasked them for most people except for the bloody-fingered clingers.
    , @Unapologetic White Man
    I believe more and more that the Right vs. Left tension is largely just a form of misdirection. Misdirection is by far the most important tool in the magician's toolkit.
  17. @StAugustine
    There's also the possibility that Bullshit orthodoxy beliefs are useful as tribal markers. No one is going to sign on for something obviously false, unless it's a qualifier for belonging to the group. Whether this is done intentionally to weed out dissenters from the group, or if the bullshit creeps in and exposes dissenters naturally, I couldn't say. However, the usefulness of a bullshit orthodoxy belief is more useful than the truth because the objective truth is the same for everyone. Even if one tribe happens on objective truth as a tribal marker, none of the other tribes can use it, so everyone else ends up with bullshit markers to differentiate themselves.

    All well and good, but [all credit to Spandrell], the problem is that humans are status signalling machines, and easily fall into status signalling spirals, whereby new bullshit markers that show your higher status are continuously created until the tribe is drowning in bullshit.

    The cynical take of the Emperor's Clothes is that the emperor notes everyone who says he is naked and burns them at the stake as heretics.

    Life is tough without a tribe-you don't want to be cast out.

    The cynical take of the Emperor’s Clothes is that the emperor notes everyone who says he is naked and burns them at the stake as heretics.

    Yeah, but probably not the emperor himself (who would typically just be an affable figurehead) but the regime’s secret police.

    Though, the other thing, I think about this is, I wonder which is more sinister, an explicit Orwellian Thought Police or there is no need for the Thought Police, because people have internalized it. They are so indoctrinated that they police their own thoughts…

    Read More
  18. @libtard
    It seems there's just enough BDQ in your (Jonathan's) arguments to qualify you as an HIQI.

    For example, "blowbacks". You wonder why there were no "deep" events of this nature during the "entire period of the British empire" -- and therefore the term blowback couldn't have been invented then. Conveniently forgetting the IRA are you? And never taking into account the ease of travel since the sun set on Her Majesty's Union Jack, or the greater size of the immigrant populations in modern urban centers! Nor do you mention the increased ease of preparing blowback events with weapons that cause massive casualties, which would have been much more difficult to obtain for would-be out-for-revenge "terrorists" in the waning days of the British empire.

    Yes you do mention the Vietnamese populations in the US, but it seems hardly likely that this community would be vengeful for the bombing of villages and the killing of innocents. The stateside Vietnamese population only became significant during the fall of the South, and most of the "boat people" who arrived here were fleeing from the expected communist takeover, and were not imbued with an ideology of total war against the foreign occupier of their homelands. So why would you expect any blowback from them?

    Then for WW2, you describe the conventional narrative as starting from 22 June 1941. This is total bollocks. It makes your 3 "options" look ridiculous -- as if the US corporate elite's only concern about the war had to do with the survival (or not) of the Soviet Union. And how do you explain the option 3 you claim was behind US and British "help" for Joe Stalin? By resorting to one of the most tried-and-true (but actually false) myths about Jewish political power being responsible for this. ZPC may be a real phenomenon in the Iraq war and the current interventions in the Middle East, but you do not provide one iota of supporting evidence for this influencing US/British policies in WW2. Talk about TITT all you want. Where's the remedial education you said was needed?

    …most of the “boat people” who arrived here were fleeing from the expected communist takeover, and were not imbued with an ideology of total war against the foreign occupier of their homelands.

    What you write above largely refutes itself. You’re engaging in a straw man. You write “most of the boat people were….”. Well, as a proportion of any large refugee population, the number who would be terrorists is always going to be very small. What needs to be explained is not that “most of” the people were not terrorists. That should actually go without saying. It’s that none of them were.

    Throughout the cold war, there were many defectors from the Soviet bloc who were political dissidents in their country of origin. Probably most were genuine political dissidents. However, it is also clear that the Soviet government took advantage of the situation to plant spies in the West. So, while most of the defectors were genuine political dissidents, some were not.

    If there had been an underground group of Vietnamese who wanted to get revenge by sending agents to the U.S. who could then mount terrorist attacks, some of them could have got into the U.S. by representing that they were political refugees.

    But, you see, all this seems to be a counterfactual because, it appears, no such Vietnamese group with a “blowback terrorism” agenda seems to have ever existed! AND THAT’S EXACTLY MY POINT!

    They bombed the shit out these countries. Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos. In the most utterly vicious and ruthless manner. And there was never a single blowback terrorism event in the U.S. Not one.

    So why would you expect any blowback from them?

    Well, generally speaking, I don’t expect any blowback, because I do not find it to be a very credible explanation of events. No, it’s obviously up to people who do believe in the blowback phenomenon to explain why there was no blowback in this and other such cases.

    But, look, this could just go on in circles. If you say, contrary to what I believe, that blowback is an important phenomenon, then why don’t you just tell us what are the major terrorist acts of recent history (or history generally) that you are sure are examples of blowback?

    Then we could examine them. Just to be arguing in the most general, handwaving kind of way about whether the phenomenon exists likely cant get anywhere. So just list what was blowback. Was 9/11 blowback? Was 7/7 in London blowback? What about this thing in San Bernardino recently? What about these recent events in Paris and Brussels?

    Read More
  19. woodNfish says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I would like to think your article will help in the fight to unmask the Left,

     

    Hmm, I'm frankly puzzled by your desire to frame this as a right/left thing. The title of the essay is about "reclaiming reality" and reality just exists. It's not really right or left. In fact at the very end, I basically am saying that right/left is hardly even relevant if you're not connected with objective reality.

    Now, I grant that telling the truth straightforwardly about certain things could be interpreted as right or left. For example, if you point out that Bruce Jenner is not a woman, but rather, simply a man wearing a dress, people could say that is a right-wing statement. But, to me, it's just the truth, it's not right-wing or left-wing. To tell the truth about these Wall Street bloodsuckers is taken to be left-wing, I suppose, but to me, again, if something is true, it's not left or right. It's just true.

    I will agree with you that lies reside on both camps, but PC is a mainly a Leftist creation. You may counter that my examples of Iraq and Afghanistan were right wing and I will agree that is the perception, but Bush and all the other RINO neocons are nothing more than unreformed leftists as is amply documented in this blog and at VDARE. The current election has unmasked them for most people except for the bloody-fingered clingers.

    Read More
  20. @libtard
    It seems there's just enough BDQ in your (Jonathan's) arguments to qualify you as an HIQI.

    For example, "blowbacks". You wonder why there were no "deep" events of this nature during the "entire period of the British empire" -- and therefore the term blowback couldn't have been invented then. Conveniently forgetting the IRA are you? And never taking into account the ease of travel since the sun set on Her Majesty's Union Jack, or the greater size of the immigrant populations in modern urban centers! Nor do you mention the increased ease of preparing blowback events with weapons that cause massive casualties, which would have been much more difficult to obtain for would-be out-for-revenge "terrorists" in the waning days of the British empire.

    Yes you do mention the Vietnamese populations in the US, but it seems hardly likely that this community would be vengeful for the bombing of villages and the killing of innocents. The stateside Vietnamese population only became significant during the fall of the South, and most of the "boat people" who arrived here were fleeing from the expected communist takeover, and were not imbued with an ideology of total war against the foreign occupier of their homelands. So why would you expect any blowback from them?

    Then for WW2, you describe the conventional narrative as starting from 22 June 1941. This is total bollocks. It makes your 3 "options" look ridiculous -- as if the US corporate elite's only concern about the war had to do with the survival (or not) of the Soviet Union. And how do you explain the option 3 you claim was behind US and British "help" for Joe Stalin? By resorting to one of the most tried-and-true (but actually false) myths about Jewish political power being responsible for this. ZPC may be a real phenomenon in the Iraq war and the current interventions in the Middle East, but you do not provide one iota of supporting evidence for this influencing US/British policies in WW2. Talk about TITT all you want. Where's the remedial education you said was needed?

    Then for WW2, you describe the conventional narrative as starting from 22 June 1941. This is total bollocks.

    Well, you’re trying to make hay with something that I, of course, never said. I never said that WW2 started on 22 June 1941. I simply stated that was the date that Germany invaded the USSR, nothing more nothing less. There is really nothing to take issue with there. That is definitely an established historical fact…

    I went straight to that point in time because it was the key point I wanted to examine to illustrate a certain idea. There are other examples I could have chosen, and in that case, I would have gone straight to the relevant point in time. In no case would that mean that I am saying that history began at that point and nothing happened before then!

    It makes your 3 “options” look ridiculous — as if the US corporate elite’s only concern about the war had to do with the survival (or not) of the Soviet Union.

    To be clear, I never stated in the essay that I had all the answers to this. I simply stated that option 3 was rather surprising. Why would the US corporate elite be at all interested in saving the Soviet Union?

    I simply posed the question. Do you have an answer?

    By resorting to one of the most tried-and-true (but actually false) myths about Jewish political power being responsible for this.

    Well, okay, this is your claim. So, you say Jewish political power had absolutely nothing to do with this episode of history. Fine. Then answer the question.

    Why did Britain and the U.S. pull out all the stops to help Joe Stalin in his hour of need?

    Specifically, what national interest was the U.S. pursuing by taking this course? Also, in July of 1941, say, what percentage of the U.S. population, approximately, do you reckon, if asked, would have supported a policy of intervening in the war on the side of the USSR?

    ZPC may be a real phenomenon in the Iraq war and the current interventions in the Middle East, but you do not provide one iota of supporting evidence for this influencing US/British policies in WW2.

    Hmm, interesting. You say “ZPC may be a… in the Iraq war..”. You mean you’re not sure?

    But… okay, you accept that it “might” be. ZPC might be a factor in the mess in Iraq. Might be… i.e. you are unsure but you are open to the possibility. (I’m not putting any words in your mouth. I take your words at face value.)

    Okay, so why are you open to the possibility that the ZPC influenced U.S. foreign policy in the early 2000′s but are totally certain that nothing similar happened in the early 1940′s?

    And, moreover, if the ZPC was not a factor in this, then, what was the main causal factor that impelled the U.S. to want to get in the war on the side of Stalin?

    Read More
  21. This article summarizes much of my thought in a clear manner so I want to thank you. But you should be more careful with the details of your examples lest you lose credibility. For example, the Earth’s being at the center of the Universe was never a Catholic dogma. A better example for your TITTs may be the epicicles that bolstered geocentric theory. Or the way that all scientists believed planets moved in circles out of a comment from Plato. When Kepler discovered that orbits were not circular, he was devastated.

    I am intrigued by your explanation of World War II. I think you should have explained it more. I am still not sure that Anglo countries trying to stop Hitler to become the new hegemonic power was not enough. Germany was triumphant at this point of the war and “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. This does not preclude other interests and I am not against other explanations as you suggest (although I would have preferred that you explain it with more detail) but I cannot assess the truth of an explanation without knowing this explanation first. Maybe you could link to a web page or a book to learn more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    For example, the Earth’s being at the center of the Universe was never a Catholic dogma.
     
    Well, okay, my sense of things is that I may have been taught an oversimplified version of what happened in grade school. Regardless, if you just google a string like "heliocentric heresy" you quickly run into pages that say that Galileo, for example, was tried for heresy precisely for saying that the earth went round the sun. It maybe a bit more nuanced than that, but for the purposes of my article, I think what I said is okay.

    You see, the real point is that if somebody is constrained to explain events (solar eclipses, the seasons, whatever...) and must base his explanation on the notion that the sun goes round the earth, you can know pretty well that the explanation is not going to be correct.

    Moreover, you can know this without any specialized domain expertise.

    That is the TITT concept, that a taboo causes you to construct contrived, tortuous explanations of things, when the correct explanation is right under your nose. Of course, the whole astronomy thing is just a lead-in. Obviously, my intent was to apply this concept to political analysis! For example, in another part of this conversation, somebody brought up the vast amounts of money that the U.S. spent specifically to destabilize Ukraine. If somebody tries to explain what happened in Ukraine but has to pretend that it had nothing to do with agitation financed by the U.S. government, any explanation they come up with will be very contrived and incorrect.

    I am intrigued by your explanation of World War II. I think you should have explained it more.
     
    Well, first of all, there seems to be a misreading here. I did not provide an "explanation" of WW2 and that is obviously way beyond the scope of the essay. If I say that an explanation of the solar eclipse that is based on the sun going round the earth cannot possibly be correct, that is not at all the same as offering an explanation myself! I am simply saying that any correct explanation must be based on the earth going round the sun.

    So, in general, if your explanation of any event glosses over key aspects of a situation because it's taboo to mention them, the explanation cannot be satisfactory. I am completely satisfied that any general description of WW2 that does not mention Jewish political power is going to be largely contrived and false,certainly in many key aspects. But, again, for me to say that does not mean that I am offering a complete history of WW2 myself! Surely you can understand that, no?

    Now, I just searched and found again a video that I think is quite elucidating on this whole matter:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbO3_vHpehM

    This is only 9 minutes from a Q&A from a much longer talk. So if you want more detail, you can find hour-long presentations. But in this clip, David Irving outlines that somewhere around 1936, Winston Churchill received a gift, that in present day money, would be on the order of a million dollars, specifically from wealthy Jews. Specifically, a group called "the Focus" that was not exclusively Jewish (like current-day neocons are not exclusively a Jewish group) but very dominated by wealthy British Jews of a certain sort. To all intents an purposes, a Jewish lobby not so very different from current-day AIPAC.

    This video contains the kind of information that would get memory holed when it is a question of constructing, let's say, the approved kosher history of WW2. The fact that Churchill was bought and paid for by the Jewish lobby of the day is obviously a key part of the puzzle.

    I am still not sure that Anglo countries trying to stop Hitler to become the new hegemonic power was not enough. Germany was triumphant at this point of the war and “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
     
    Well, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not really a very satisfactory explanation of the historical juncture I describe in the essay. For starters, it contains question-begging. Yes, if I decide that Peter is my mortal enemy and then Paul is also Peter's mortal enemy, then Paul is my friend because we have a common enemy. That still begs the question of why I decided that Peter is my mortal enemy! Obviously, if I decided that Paul was my mortal enemy then, by the same token, Peter would be my friend, no?

    In other words, the enemy of my enemy reasoning would justify allying with Germany against the USSR just as well as the other way round. In fact, what you have here is Winston Churchill, an inveterate right-winger reactionary type, who despised Soviet communism, and prior to receiving all that Jewish money, had expressed admiration for Hitler, absolutely determined to bail out the Soviet Union in her hour of need. The video I link above, I think, provides some keys to understanding this.
  22. @iffen
    Conspiracy aficionados are usually intelligent analytical types. They want everything (the entire kaleidoscope) to “fit” together in a rational manner. They tend to dismiss the mainspring of human and societal behavior (emotions) because they guard against their own emotions when they are constructing their Rube Goldberg scenarios that purport to explain historical and political events. They dismiss hate, religion, passion and most of all stupidity and incompetence in their constructs of the players involved in their chosen conspiracy events. There are no loose ends, no unexplained occurrences, no screw-ups, no accidents, no mistakes in judgment, no double-crossers (a human specialty) in in this clockwork world, but that is not reality.

    My objection to using conspiracy theory as the cosmological turtle is that it helps to obscure the real casual factors (flawed political ideas, greed, idiocy, opportunism, etc.)

    I suspect that there may be a conspiracy to convince us that conspiracies are the cosmological turtle.

    …..They want everything (the entire kaleidoscope) to “fit” together in a rational manner. They tend to dismiss the mainspring of human and societal behavior (emotions) because they guard against their own emotions when they are constructing their Rube Goldberg scenarios that purport to explain historical and political events. They dismiss hate, religion, passion and most of all stupidity and incompetence in their constructs of …..

    Uhh, yeah…. or, in other words, blah blah blah blah blah fuckin’ blah blah….

    Dude, I wrote 9400 words above. I put some real work into that. And this is the best you can do? Like, there is absolutely nothing that you can sink your teeth into, logically or factually… nothing?? So you are reduced to emitting this kind of verbal diarrhea, no?

    What I can’t quite understand is why you even bother? This is such pathetic wanker behavior that…. like, don’t you have anything better to do with your time?

    They dismiss hate, religion, passion and most of all stupidity and incompetence in their constructs of the players involved in their chosen conspiracy events. There are no loose ends, no unexplained occurrences, no screw-ups, no accidents,…

    Yes, how terribly irrational of people to refuse to accept explanations that do not fit the available facts.

    no mistakes in judgment, no double-crossers (a human specialty) in in this clockwork world, but that is not reality.

    Yeah, I may not have covered this TMT. This is sort of “getting all mystical” or something. You tell people a bullshit story and if they don’t believe it, it’s because they are not in tune with the ineffable… inscrutable… elusive… nature of…. the interconnected… cosmic….. flying pigs…

    Read More
  23. iffen says:

    You tell people a bullshit story and if they don’t believe it, it’s because they are not in tune with the ineffable… inscrutable… elusive… nature of…. the interconnected… cosmic….. flying pigs…

    My point exactly.

    Dude, I wrote 9400 words above. I put some real work into that. And this is the best you can do?

    I feel no regret.

    Bullshit piled ten stories high is still bullshit.

    Read More
  24. Well, actually, I don’t even presume to know fully the reasons why so many high IQ people are so easily taken in by absurd political propaganda.

    This one seems to be easy if you accept the concept of Freud, that there is a way to specialise in rationality and fail right away: Freud called this phenomenon rationalisation. It is a reliable source, which allows your mind to be disturbed and/ or malfunction permanently – it can even make you urge to be wrong.
    The only way to overcome this problem is – if you don’t mind, that I put it simple: You have to try to relate to the world and to other persons not only with your mind, but also with your heart/ your feelings. In short form: The brighter you are, the less you are inclined to accept that there is no reasonable perspective to be gained without your counterpart. To qoute Hegel: Something is something as s o m e t h i n g e l s e … But that needs to be understood – and esteemed.

    If you want to dive deeper into this realm, there would be the concept of enligthenment and it’s inherent (you could also say: structural) problem, which looks like this: You should apply the concept of enlightenment c a r e f u l l y – otherwise you end up being foolish. Because the total defeat of your counterpart would result in the destruction of the concept. There is no way to be totally enlightened without being unenlightened.

    Jagger/Richards got this one right in Sympathy For the Devil: “If you meet me, have some c o u r t e s y , have some sympathy and have some taste” – just put in “entlightenment” instead of the “Devil” and you’ll see: The Stones speak here about the same problem as you do, only in a form, that’s maybe a little bit more accessible.
    Jonathan Franzen gave good examples of these “dialectics of enlightenment”(Horkheimer/ Adorno) in FREEDOM as well as in PURITY; plus I guess (but that’s just a guess), that Noam Chomsky (for example) doesn’t get what’s at stake in these novels. I don’t say Chomsky is all wrong, but I sure don’t trust him the way I trust Franzen. Or Fromm. Or The Rolling Stones. Let alone Johann Wolfgang Goethe (cf. Faust, I + II, plus his “Maxims and Reflektions” and his journal from his second Swiss Journey from 17799, for a start).

    As for your big question: There is such a thing as reality. And I agree with you: It’s not a question of being left or right to aknowledge reality. It’s rather a question of the culture you live in, because being enlightened isn’t fun (and isn’t desirerable) whilst being alone.
    Being rational and being human requires company – and by and large a “sane society” ( Erich Fromm).
    The German Romantics were a group, that got hold of this modern problem, and what puzzled them a lot was, that the most important of the aspects of this problem are intertwined. It’s said that the philosopher Schelling once s i g h e d : It’s a l l intertwined! – This sigh marked a reasonble beginning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    Mr Kief,

    I think the issues involved with the Global War on Terror are somewhat less complicated than examining assorted philosophical treatises on what constitutes "reality".

    If someone succeeds in blowing up your house, and you are told that "Joe" did it...you respond by blowing up "Joe"'s house....only to find out, later, "Joe" was not involved at all.

    This is not a profound philosophical query, it is just Fraud, plain and simple.

    Someone fooled you into believing it was Joe...when it wasn't.

    This is the case with the bogus attribution of the "anthrax" attacks, to Saddam, and also nearly the same as being told of the certainty of Saddam's "imminent WMD attack".

    It is not very complicated when you recognize you were being lied to.

    When those in power are willing to defraud you into war, it is not a good thing.

    I don't think those in power should defraud the American people at all.

    Period.


    If they didn't, things would be much better , and Mr Revusky would not have to entertain such lengthy dissertations, on TITT, HIQI, BDQ, and RRN.

    Does that make sense?
  25. @Jonathan Revusky

    Mostly valid, but you’ve got the timeline of WW2 wrong.

     

    Uhh, no, I beg to differ. I just quickly reread the parts that I wrote above that relate to WW2 and, at no point, did I get any timeline wrong.

    Granted, I did not include the full history of WW2, but that was not the goal of the essay.

    What I did was I simply pointed out that Germany invaded the Soviet Union and both the Britain and the U.S.A. pulled out all the stops to save the Soviet Union from collapse and I posed the question: why? That does not involve getting any timeline wrong.

    In fact, it is very symptomatic of TITT explanations that the TITT mongers mess up the timeline. You'll find that event A is followed by event B and TITT mongers will imply that B caused A. If I committed any such mistake in the essay, by all means, you should tell me so, but I do not believe that I did.

    By the time Hitler pushed into Russia, he had already taken France, and was already bombing Britain.

     

    Well, frankly, the reversal of cause and effect is utterly typical of TITT argumentation, as is question-begging generally. I posed the question in the essay of why Britain remained in the war explicitly to save Stalin's ass and your explanation is that "Hitler... was already bombing Britain". Now, first of all, Hitler was bombing Britain because Churchill started bombing Germany. (Go look at the timeline.) But aside from that, Germany and Britain were bombing one another precisely because they remained at war!

    No, it is not that Britain remained at war with Germany because Germany was bombing Britain. Germany was bombing Britain because Britain chose to remain at war with Germany! This kind of reversal of logical cause and effect is utterly typical of TITT explanations of history!

    Of course, even aside from the reversal of cause and effect that you engage in (Germany bombing Britain caused Britain to remain in the war rather than the other way round) that still doesn't explain the desire of the U.S.A. to bail out the Soviets. The U.S. was, of course, not being bombed by Germany.

    Straightforward strategy. You don’t need a deeper explanation for this.
     
    LOL. Well, speak for yourself. Maybe you don't feel any need to seek a deeper explanation of these events. I do.

    The general U.S. public was led to believe that they got into a war in Afghanistan (and later Iraq) because several skyscrapers in NYC were destroyed. But that is superficial politics. The person who understands deep politics knows that the buildings were blown up in Manhattan because the U.S.A. (well, specifically a faction of anglo-zionist deep politics) wanted these wars. They needed an enabling event and 9/11 was that enabling event.

    Again, the events of 9/11 were caused by the desire (of certain people, a certain faction) to get into the wars that followed. The wars that followed were not caused by 9/11!

    Well, in short, after years, more like decades, of propagandizing, we would all do well to recognize TITTs when we see them, no?

    Mr. Revusky:
    Since you touch the topic of World War 2, I would like to point your attention to the series of books by former Soviet intelligence officer Vladimir Rezun, mostly known by his pen-name Victor Suvorov. The most recent (and thus updated) book is
    “The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II”,
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1591148065/ , $13.19 +$3.99 S&H (used.)
    His thesis is that Stalin was preparing to the war with Germany in an extremely thorough way. His eventual goal was absorption of the whole Europe into his communist state. His tactical plan was
    to use Germany as an “Icebreaker of Revolution”:
    to make Germany weaken itself and other Western countries by mutual war, and then this Icebreaker would clear the path for the whole “flotilla” of “liberating” Soviet troops, just as Baltic states Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were “liberated” in 1940. The particular edition of Suvorov’s book cited above spends extra time on the role of Stalin’s Comintern in the build-up of Nazi power in Germany.

    I do not have anything nontrivial to say about the rest of your article.
    Your I.f.f.U.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Victor Suvorov.
     
    Uhh, yeah, I'm aware of Suvorov, but I have to admit that I have never taken the time to read any of those works. I have had it in mind to do so, but it has not quite popped up to the top of my TODO list.

    Now, obviously, if Stalin was in fact planning an attack towards the West, and Hitler simply beat him to the punch, that very much makes one reconsider the conventional interpretation of the whole conflict.

    What is your view on Suvorov's thesis? (I personally simply don't know.)

    You know, taking a step or two back and looking at this, one funny thing about all of this discussion is the absolute asymmetry between WW1 and WW2. Like, I'm pretty sure that if you asked almost anybody (in "polite company" or a cocktail party or whatever) what they think WW2 was about, they would almost all have the same basic explanation: Hitler was this madman who wanted to conquer the world and had to be stopped.

    The Roger Rabbit narrative explanation, basically.

    BUT.... if you asked them what WW1 was about, they would just look at you blankly. I remember vaguely how it was presented in school in North America, and it was kind of like... some Archduke dude gets whacked in a place called Sarajevo and then through some chain of events, everybody starts killing each other for the next four years. Is that a very satisfactory explanation??? So I say that if you ask anybody what that war was really about, people would just shrug their shoulders.

    But then WW2, everybody thinks they know what that was about! So, what I did in this article is I just lay out certain facts, and hint that the conventional explanation of key aspects of WW2 is probably not true. And all these people who think they are experts on WW2 come out of the woodwork, getting very strident and insulting with me. (I'm not complaining, I wasn't born yesterday, so I anticipated it!)

    And, you know, actually, I didn't so much offer any explanation of anything as just pose a key question: Why did the U.S. and Britain bend over backwards to back Stalin? People are suggesting that my asking that question necessarily implies that I am supposed to know the answer! And you get weird shit. Somebody said that Britain stayed in the war against Germany because she was getting bombed by Germany. It didn't occur to this person that Britain was getting bombed by Germany precisely because she chose to stay in the war! Reversal of cause and effect! Typical TITT stuff LOL!

    You see, that's also a funny one because you look at the timeline and you see something very strange, no? I mean, France capitulates on 22 June 1940, and operation Barbarossa begins exactly a year later. So, for an entire year, Britain is at war alone with Germany, rejecting every armistice offer, staying in a conflict which they have absolutely no possibility of winning. EXCEPT if either the USA or USSR (OR BOTH of the above) enters the war. Which is what happened, right? 18 months later and Germany is at war simultaneously with both the USA and USSR so the result is not really in doubt. Total reversal. But how could Winnie have known that?

    So obviously, Churchill (or more accurately, Winnie's puppet masters) are fairly sure that Britain's stand alone against Germany is temporary. Otherwise it would be suicidally insane. But how could they know that? Otherwise, they would just sit down with the Germans and work out a peace treaty. Obviously, Churchill must know that Britain will only be alone in this only temporarily, no? But how did he know that? Or maybe he didn't know with certainty, but was gambling, right?

    Of course, you can go back a bit further and ask some very interesting questions. What was that whole phony war, "la drôle de guerre" about? Why did Britain and particularly France declare war on Germany (supposedly to help the Poles) and then sit on their thumbs? What's up with that?

    There is a French leftist historian, Annie Lacroix-Riz, who wrote some stuff about that, and I have to admit I haven't read that either (like Suvorov) but I heard her interviewed once and was intrigued with her interpretation of what happened to France in 1940. I mean, that's another damned thing. Hitler was a veteran of WW1, mostly on the western front, fighting the French. He had quite a bit of respect for the French and really wanted to avoid another western front war. His ambitions were entirely in the east, I think that's clear enough.

    But what is strange is that in the first war, Germany threw everything they could at the French at key moments, and maybe the French came very close to collapse at certain points, but the war remained stalemated for four years. And Hitler lived through that. How could Hitler have anticipated that the French were going to just collapse in 6 weeks? There's that famous photo of him dancing a jig when he got the news. But based on his experience in WW1, there was no way he could have thought that a war with France would be over so fast!

    So the version we get is this thing that the French were these "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" or something, but that's really just a slur, not a serious explanation of anything. And, after all, they took everything the Germans threw at them for 4 years in the previous war...

    I mean, I'm making a point in the essay that when you look at this history with fresh eyes, and you look at the conventional analysis, you see that there are so many aspects that are really just very inadequately explained. But, I think the biggest single case is the going all-out to support Stalin when Hitler turns his attention east. But look what happens here. You ask the question and people of course jump on you. Not that they have a real answer, mind you, but....

    Is it really the case that Churchill basically bankrupted the British Empire in order to stay in the war to save Stalin? It sounds crazy, but if you look at it, that seems to be what happened, no? It really should require a real explanation!
  26. alexander says:
    @Dieter Kief

    Well, actually, I don’t even presume to know fully the reasons why so many high IQ people are so easily taken in by absurd political propaganda.
     
    This one seems to be easy if you accept the concept of Freud, that there is a way to specialise in rationality and fail right away: Freud called this phenomenon rationalisation. It is a reliable source, which allows your mind to be disturbed and/ or malfunction permanently - it can even make you urge to be wrong.
    The only way to overcome this problem is - if you don't mind, that I put it simple: You have to try to relate to the world and to other persons not only with your mind, but also with your heart/ your feelings. In short form: The brighter you are, the less you are inclined to accept that there is no reasonable perspective to be gained without your counterpart. To qoute Hegel: Something is something as s o m e t h i n g e l s e ... But that needs to be understood - and esteemed.

    If you want to dive deeper into this realm, there would be the concept of enligthenment and it's inherent (you could also say: structural) problem, which looks like this: You should apply the concept of enlightenment c a r e f u l l y - otherwise you end up being foolish. Because the total defeat of your counterpart would result in the destruction of the concept. There is no way to be totally enlightened without being unenlightened.

    Jagger/Richards got this one right in Sympathy For the Devil: "If you meet me, have some c o u r t e s y , have some sympathy and have some taste" - just put in "entlightenment" instead of the "Devil" and you'll see: The Stones speak here about the same problem as you do, only in a form, that's maybe a little bit more accessible.
    Jonathan Franzen gave good examples of these "dialectics of enlightenment"(Horkheimer/ Adorno) in FREEDOM as well as in PURITY; plus I guess (but that's just a guess), that Noam Chomsky (for example) doesn't get what's at stake in these novels. I don't say Chomsky is all wrong, but I sure don't trust him the way I trust Franzen. Or Fromm. Or The Rolling Stones. Let alone Johann Wolfgang Goethe (cf. Faust, I + II, plus his "Maxims and Reflektions" and his journal from his second Swiss Journey from 17799, for a start).

    As for your big question: There is such a thing as reality. And I agree with you: It's not a question of being left or right to aknowledge reality. It's rather a question of the culture you live in, because being enlightened isn't fun (and isn't desirerable) whilst being alone.
    Being rational and being human requires company - and by and large a "sane society" ( Erich Fromm).
    The German Romantics were a group, that got hold of this modern problem, and what puzzled them a lot was, that the most important of the aspects of this problem are intertwined. It's said that the philosopher Schelling once s i g h e d : It's a l l intertwined! - This sigh marked a reasonble beginning.

    Mr Kief,

    I think the issues involved with the Global War on Terror are somewhat less complicated than examining assorted philosophical treatises on what constitutes “reality”.

    If someone succeeds in blowing up your house, and you are told that “Joe” did it…you respond by blowing up “Joe”‘s house….only to find out, later, “Joe” was not involved at all.

    This is not a profound philosophical query, it is just Fraud, plain and simple.

    Someone fooled you into believing it was Joe…when it wasn’t.

    This is the case with the bogus attribution of the “anthrax” attacks, to Saddam, and also nearly the same as being told of the certainty of Saddam’s “imminent WMD attack”.

    It is not very complicated when you recognize you were being lied to.

    When those in power are willing to defraud you into war, it is not a good thing.

    I don’t think those in power should defraud the American people at all.

    Period.

    If they didn’t, things would be much better , and Mr Revusky would not have to entertain such lengthy dissertations, on TITT, HIQI, BDQ, and RRN.

    Does that make sense?

    Read More
  27. Art says:

    Hmm – no conspiracies – no blowback. People do not connive? Revenge is not a reality? Why do we accept these bold lies?

    Gee – cui bono – “to whose profit” would those false notions accrue? Would it be a certain tribe?

    America is living the biggest grandest conspiracy ever propagated in human history. Six million Jews are conspiring to control America for the benefit of their tribe and their country – Israel.

    The ways this is happening are too numerous to catalog. But here is one conspiracy that is totally obvious to any honest person.

    The greatest danger to humanity are nukes. There is nothing that threatens humanity more. Israel has 200 nukes – yet no one will speak of it.

    How about FOX, CNN, maybe MSNBC – NO. How about NBC, CBS, ABC – NO. How about the newspapers in NY, Boston, Washington, Chicago, LA – NO. How about Harvard and the like – NO. How about the US senate – NO. How about the house of representatives – NO. How about the president – No. Maybe the vice president – NO.

    The conspiracy to hide Israeli nukes is totally effective.

    As to blowback – America is losing its stature all over the world because of our unquestioned support of Israel – end of story.

    p.s. Is the author a member of this tribe – would he pump 9,600 false word our way – Hmm?

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    You've made some valid points but diluted your point by attacking JR personally. By all means take issue with anything in the article and it's likely he'll respond. I'd say he'd likely relish doing it. Much of it made sense to me which is why I grace The Unz Review.

    Conflating some Jewish involvement in a conspiracy as to meaning ALL Jewish involvement in it , I really think is counter productive. Is it possible that the tribe you refer to has also been infiltrated? William Cooper always maintained that was the case. Any thoughts?
  28. Sam Shama says:

    You wrote a bunch of nonsense and have no idea what reality is. Your basic problem is that you think that the USA and the West is behind everything undesirable and bad in the world. What is your description of the ideal world? I come from a family that for 3 generations served in the armed forces and folks around us (which would be pretty much close to average law-abiding American) would not want to have lived under Nazi rule. That is why we went to help the Russians (However that came about in history is something you can talk all you want but won’t convince too many folks). So what? Yeah for sure we wanted to be the victors, why not? You think the Nazis and the soviets were trying to do anything different? If you think so you are the fool with or without high IQ. All immigrants want to come to this country for the same reason: a better life.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Rurik, Bill Jones
    • Replies: @Biff
    There really is one of you in every crowd...
    , @RadicalCenter
    Would your relatives and neighbors have wanted to live under SOVIET rule? Because that's what our beloved American soldiers helped to "achieve" for tens of millions of people by helping the USSR to prevail.

    Normal people, including normal Americans, would not want to live under either Nazi OR Soviet rule.

    Perhaps the US should have remained neutral in WW2? Perish the thought.
  29. @Anonymous
    Great article.

    My favorite TITT currently circulating is that the rise of Trump "is a rebellion against Washington." It's a rebellion against the MSM, including Fox, and just about everyone knows it. Can't say it!

    Disgree.
    It’s a revolt against both the political filth AND their corporate media whores.

    Read More
  30. @polistra
    Mostly valid, but you've got the timeline of WW2 wrong. By the time Hitler pushed into Russia, he had already taken France, and was already bombing Britain. The Allies saw Russia as a useful energy-absorber, so they helped Russia to keep the Krauts busy in the Eastern direction. And in the end it worked. Germany spent most of its troops and equipment in Russia.

    Straightforward strategy. You don't need a deeper explanation for this.

    You overlook the fact that it was Britain who declared war on Germany.

    Read More
  31. Heymrguda says:
    @polistra
    Mostly valid, but you've got the timeline of WW2 wrong. By the time Hitler pushed into Russia, he had already taken France, and was already bombing Britain. The Allies saw Russia as a useful energy-absorber, so they helped Russia to keep the Krauts busy in the Eastern direction. And in the end it worked. Germany spent most of its troops and equipment in Russia.

    Straightforward strategy. You don't need a deeper explanation for this.

    Yes, it makes some sense to say the west believed hitler to be a worse Threat than the USSR. But how do you explain the extent of the massive aid provided to Stalin? The amount of armor,aircraft (5000 each of P-39s andA-20s alone) plus, foodstuffs, trucks, munitions etc. was far beyond anything the USSR could have needed and continued until September 1945. If the USA and Britain were concerned only with the ussr’s survival, all aid could have been terminated at the end of 1942. Even George Kennan questioned why aid continued as long as it did.

    Read More
  32. Biff says:
    @Sam Shama
    You wrote a bunch of nonsense and have no idea what reality is. Your basic problem is that you think that the USA and the West is behind everything undesirable and bad in the world. What is your description of the ideal world? I come from a family that for 3 generations served in the armed forces and folks around us (which would be pretty much close to average law-abiding American) would not want to have lived under Nazi rule. That is why we went to help the Russians (However that came about in history is something you can talk all you want but won't convince too many folks). So what? Yeah for sure we wanted to be the victors, why not? You think the Nazis and the soviets were trying to do anything different? If you think so you are the fool with or without high IQ. All immigrants want to come to this country for the same reason: a better life.

    There really is one of you in every crowd…

    Read More
  33. No matter whether your analyses of these various deep events are correct, u am disappointed in a world where we have to ask.

    Minor quibble: I think the word “homosexual” didn’t catch on because it’s long.

    Read More
  34. fnn says:
    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn
    From the second work:

    "In the bitter words of Joseph P. Kennedy, uttered at a later time, 'neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington.' On another occasion, Kennedy blamed [Roosevelt's ambassador to France, William C.] Bullitt for the outbreak of hostilities. Polish and French documents bear out much of Kennedy's charge." (p. 297)
     
  35. People think there are just

    Smart
    Average
    And
    Dumb people

    Humans tend to be cognitively micro specialized.

    Well basically because most of those who think like that are not real thinkers. Thinkers are the mental workers, they are “naturally” or better “BORN naturally” competent to be a mental worker, to engage constantly and correctly in perfectionist thinking’s. Most people are very lazy and precipitated in the act to think because they are very quick to take the pet ideas and change this for them in facts.

    Libtards are comparatively good to develop bullshit crap ideas than conservatards. They are (((comparatively speaking with avg conservative))-) good to engage in a IDEATIONAL approach or to think about ideas….

    But they are horrible to think about facts. Ideas is not the end of a thinking process but the half of the path, a way to found (Zionism) or to produce ( a house) physically feel (statistics) or concretely made facts. A house is a fact. Ideas are always a prelude to facts, facts are the reason to have ideas, they are potentially utilitarians.

    People tend to mistake vague with synthetic.

    In Talmud if I’m not wrong is saying that “is important create complex (and wrong) theories to distract ‘smarter’ goy”.

    What differentiates a classical goy than a classical Jew (or invariably classical) is that the first tend to be subconsciously naive to believe in simplistic or complex bullshit stories. Clever people don’t trust in anyone and they are always thinking if there are second or third intentions.

    Read More
  36. fnn says:
    @fnn
    Herbert Hoover says FDR was pushing for a general European war in 1938-39:
    http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/05/poland-as-pawn-hoover-identifies.html


    A mainstream liberal Jewish historian agrees:
    http://www.amazon.com/review/R1G7H48SQQAXD8/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1557780218&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books

    From the second work:

    “In the bitter words of Joseph P. Kennedy, uttered at a later time, ‘neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington.’ On another occasion, Kennedy blamed [Roosevelt's ambassador to France, William C.] Bullitt for the outbreak of hostilities. Polish and French documents bear out much of Kennedy’s charge.” (p. 297)

    Read More
  37. “High IQ Idiot”. I have a different reason for the phenomenon: Impelled from deep within, the higher the IQ the greater the acuity in rationalizing thinking or doing what one REALLY wants to think or do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    There's a lot to that, I think.

    I like Mr. Revusky's focus on the influence of taboo and stimulating thought about what are taboos today.

    I also think that with greater literacy and the loss of control of intellectual life on the part of the Catholic Church it became possible for many people to make up their own minds on things. Extraordinary prosperity and industrialization also allowed many people to live lives divorced from the realities of personal labor and the exigencies of agricultural life. It became possible for people to speculate and explore as never before and thinking in the West took on a level of abstraction that was often unhealthy. For example, socialism is unsustainable but it took root rapidly and came to influence political and economic thinking in a major way. Basically, it's airy fairy stuff.

    When people can freely engage in thinking that is unanchored in the realities of daily life then it is as you say with very smart people. They are exceptionally talented in taking half-baked ideas and extrapolating therefrom in creative ways.
  38. @Sam Shama
    You wrote a bunch of nonsense and have no idea what reality is. Your basic problem is that you think that the USA and the West is behind everything undesirable and bad in the world. What is your description of the ideal world? I come from a family that for 3 generations served in the armed forces and folks around us (which would be pretty much close to average law-abiding American) would not want to have lived under Nazi rule. That is why we went to help the Russians (However that came about in history is something you can talk all you want but won't convince too many folks). So what? Yeah for sure we wanted to be the victors, why not? You think the Nazis and the soviets were trying to do anything different? If you think so you are the fool with or without high IQ. All immigrants want to come to this country for the same reason: a better life.

    Would your relatives and neighbors have wanted to live under SOVIET rule? Because that’s what our beloved American soldiers helped to “achieve” for tens of millions of people by helping the USSR to prevail.

    Normal people, including normal Americans, would not want to live under either Nazi OR Soviet rule.

    Perhaps the US should have remained neutral in WW2? Perish the thought.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Heck no. It is not an exaggeration to say that pretty much the great majority of the world wants to live with American freedom and wealth. Yeah sure if you ask people in their native countries they would patriotically say they want their own. Well that is fine, except it is not reality when push comes to shove and they are given the option. Reality is if we adopted an open border policy, more people would want to come in than leave, guaranteed. Think about that. What Americans did by helping the Russians was prevent Hitler and he Nazis from winning. We need to crack a few eggs, to achieve our goals, that is reality. Can you tell me that the lives of the Russians would have been better under Nazis? The Germans today are better off today because Hitler and his boys were defeated. Jonathan Revusky is pretending he has come up with some great theory by sitting in his island and making generalizations. Nothing in REALITY is ever that simple. And no one should forget that if they think the U.S. did something they consider "bad", the Nazis, the Russians, the muslims would do things 100x worse if they had the opportunity. We cannot let them have it. Period.
  39. My candidate-to-sjw brother read 1984.

    ….

    He don’t understand very well.

    The correct thinking is

    Similar with verbal logic association tests

    AND

    Contextualizing with real scenario’s.

    Many “high IQ” people are only good to answer correctly the verbal logic association subtests:

    “all squads are blue
    But some squors are blue
    So all blue are squads?”

    In the real scenario world verbal logic association subtests many to most them tend to be stupid:

    “many whites are smarter than blacks
    But some whites are not smarter than blacks
    So most blacks are not smarter than whites??”

    And other question

    The speed of objective (factual) thinking

    Many to most of high IQ people seems very lazy to actualize correctly their “beliefs” or to build a correct (logic-to-rational) fact system.

    Read More
  40. Sam Shama says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Would your relatives and neighbors have wanted to live under SOVIET rule? Because that's what our beloved American soldiers helped to "achieve" for tens of millions of people by helping the USSR to prevail.

    Normal people, including normal Americans, would not want to live under either Nazi OR Soviet rule.

    Perhaps the US should have remained neutral in WW2? Perish the thought.

    Heck no. It is not an exaggeration to say that pretty much the great majority of the world wants to live with American freedom and wealth. Yeah sure if you ask people in their native countries they would patriotically say they want their own. Well that is fine, except it is not reality when push comes to shove and they are given the option. Reality is if we adopted an open border policy, more people would want to come in than leave, guaranteed. Think about that. What Americans did by helping the Russians was prevent Hitler and he Nazis from winning. We need to crack a few eggs, to achieve our goals, that is reality. Can you tell me that the lives of the Russians would have been better under Nazis? The Germans today are better off today because Hitler and his boys were defeated. Jonathan Revusky is pretending he has come up with some great theory by sitting in his island and making generalizations. Nothing in REALITY is ever that simple. And no one should forget that if they think the U.S. did something they consider “bad”, the Nazis, the Russians, the muslims would do things 100x worse if they had the opportunity. We cannot let them have it. Period.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Diana,
    Written like a true zamerican supremacist bullsh*tter!

    I doubt if you even believe the nonsense you wrote.

    Your country has spent over 90% if its existence at war, all of them wars of choice and empire.
    It is a totally depraved, psycho rogue state.

    You should read General Smedley D. Butler, at the time of his death in 1940, the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. But u won't, too much of a coward to face the truth;

    “I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
     

    “WAR is a racket. It always has been.
    It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one
    international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the
    losses in lives.”
     

    “There are only two reasons why you should ever be asked to give your youngsters. One is defense of our homes. The other is the defense of our Bill of Rights and particularly the right to worship God as we see fit. Every other reason advanced for the murder of young men is a racket, pure and simple.”

     

    , @fnn

    Can you tell me that the lives of the Russians would have been better under Nazis? The Germans today are better off today because Hitler and his boys were defeated.
     
    Russians are massively dysfunctional today and this is really nothing new. They have low birth rates, high levels of alcoholism, fantastic levels of corruption, homicide rates at almost Sub-Saharan levels and an economy dependent on resource extraction. The most talented are leaving. German occupation of Soviet territory was of course generally harsh in the conquered Soviet territory, but varied widely from region to region and we don't know how it would have evolved. After all, the Germans were fighting the greatest war in history with severe shortages of oil and food. They had nothing remotely comparable to the Texas oilfields or the Midwestern Breadbasket.

    Germans today are spiritually dead and racing toward extinction. In the Federal Republic, births last exceeded deaths in 1971. They have had a TFR way below replacement for decades. With the recent influx of migrants, ethnic Germans will be a minority of males 20-35 within two years.

    Russia:
    https://alfinnextlevel.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/3689/

    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/04/26/the-hollow-men/

    http://www.rferl.org/contentinfographics/how-the-mafia-and-politics-merge-in-russia/27719894.html

  41. @Art
    Hmm – no conspiracies – no blowback. People do not connive? Revenge is not a reality? Why do we accept these bold lies?

    Gee – cui bono – “to whose profit” would those false notions accrue? Would it be a certain tribe?

    America is living the biggest grandest conspiracy ever propagated in human history. Six million Jews are conspiring to control America for the benefit of their tribe and their country – Israel.

    The ways this is happening are too numerous to catalog. But here is one conspiracy that is totally obvious to any honest person.

    The greatest danger to humanity are nukes. There is nothing that threatens humanity more. Israel has 200 nukes – yet no one will speak of it.

    How about FOX, CNN, maybe MSNBC – NO. How about NBC, CBS, ABC – NO. How about the newspapers in NY, Boston, Washington, Chicago, LA – NO. How about Harvard and the like – NO. How about the US senate – NO. How about the house of representatives – NO. How about the president – No. Maybe the vice president – NO.

    The conspiracy to hide Israeli nukes is totally effective.

    As to blowback – America is losing its stature all over the world because of our unquestioned support of Israel – end of story.

    p.s. Is the author a member of this tribe – would he pump 9,600 false word our way – Hmm?

    You’ve made some valid points but diluted your point by attacking JR personally. By all means take issue with anything in the article and it’s likely he’ll respond. I’d say he’d likely relish doing it. Much of it made sense to me which is why I grace The Unz Review.

    Conflating some Jewish involvement in a conspiracy as to meaning ALL Jewish involvement in it , I really think is counter productive. Is it possible that the tribe you refer to has also been infiltrated? William Cooper always maintained that was the case. Any thoughts?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art

    Conflating some Jewish involvement in a conspiracy as to meaning ALL Jewish involvement in it , I really think is counter productive. Is it possible that the tribe you refer to has also been infiltrated?
     
    Maybe you have a reasonable explanation for why Israeli nukes cannot be discussed in America? Certainly it is a grave human problem. It is hard not to think conspiracy.

    85% of Jews are Zionists. This figure was given to me by a knowledgeable Jew. It is a reasonable percentage, maybe to small but a fare workable number. So is it not unreasonable to use the word Jew when talking about Jews. They may not like it, but that is how most people see them – not as Zionists, not as religious people – but as Jews.

    Mr. Revusky wrote 9,600 words on the disposition of conspiracy in America and not one of them was Jew or Zionist or Israel. How can that be?

    Mr. Revusky is a big boy – he is free to explain himself. Perhaps he has a perfect explanation – I am waiting.
    , @utu
    "Is it possible that the tribe you refer to has also been infiltrated? " - Sure. By the reptilians, right? Just wonder why the body snatchers are partial to Jewish skins? Are they more comfy? Or the reptilians are trying to frame the Jews. Yes, it is a reptilian false flag. Yes, that's a ticket. The reptilians are Antisemites. After all everybody is. That makes a perfect sense.
  42. L.K says:

    Another great article by Jonathan Revusky.

    Thanks again, more great insights, loved the stuff about the tactics and counters!

    In fact, as I read the text, I remembered some of your exchanges with geokat and LOL!

    Keep up the good work,
    Regards

    Read More
  43. L.K says:
    @Sam Shama
    Heck no. It is not an exaggeration to say that pretty much the great majority of the world wants to live with American freedom and wealth. Yeah sure if you ask people in their native countries they would patriotically say they want their own. Well that is fine, except it is not reality when push comes to shove and they are given the option. Reality is if we adopted an open border policy, more people would want to come in than leave, guaranteed. Think about that. What Americans did by helping the Russians was prevent Hitler and he Nazis from winning. We need to crack a few eggs, to achieve our goals, that is reality. Can you tell me that the lives of the Russians would have been better under Nazis? The Germans today are better off today because Hitler and his boys were defeated. Jonathan Revusky is pretending he has come up with some great theory by sitting in his island and making generalizations. Nothing in REALITY is ever that simple. And no one should forget that if they think the U.S. did something they consider "bad", the Nazis, the Russians, the muslims would do things 100x worse if they had the opportunity. We cannot let them have it. Period.

    Diana,
    Written like a true zamerican supremacist bullsh*tter!

    I doubt if you even believe the nonsense you wrote.

    Your country has spent over 90% if its existence at war, all of them wars of choice and empire.
    It is a totally depraved, psycho rogue state.

    You should read General Smedley D. Butler, at the time of his death in 1940, the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. But u won’t, too much of a coward to face the truth;

    “I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

    “WAR is a racket. It always has been.
    It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one
    international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the
    losses in lives.”

    “There are only two reasons why you should ever be asked to give your youngsters. One is defense of our homes. The other is the defense of our Bill of Rights and particularly the right to worship God as we see fit. Every other reason advanced for the murder of young men is a racket, pure and simple.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Yeah I am sure there are a few of these 'repentant' ex-USAF characters. So what pal? You are trying to make a point which does not need to be made. The US did what it had to do in order to become the most powerful country with the most powerful allies in the world. For this it applied whatever strategy that the command needed to apply. Sometimes you have to help the enemy of your enemy to achieve your goals. Crackin' a few eggs.....

    Got it?

    If you think that the enemy would have done anything different you are a bigger fool than I thought. (maybe your country was the enemy I don't know, but it sure sounds like you are some kind of anti-US character, which is fine, since we keep winning) Don't start with the bs labels 'supremacist' whatever.......only an idiot thinks the nazis or the soviets, if given victory would not try to be supreme.

    Enough said.
  44. Excellent article.

    I think the high-IQ idiots thrive by learning and adhering to societal rules. It’s something they learned growing up and serves them well. They are simply unable to accept alternative thought.

    Here are a few “deep” thoughts I read in recent months.

    1. I thought the claim that the USA spent $5 billion to take over Ukraine was a wild estimate. I recently found this 2013 video on youtube where the semi-covert coup manager from Hillary’s state Dept, Victoria Nuland spouts BS and states that $5 billion was spent!

    2. We all know the evil Nazi’s invaded Czechoslovakia. But Poland grabbed a share first. After an ultimatum from Warsaw on September 27, 1938, Czechoslovakia ceded to Poland the district of Tesin (Teschen) — an area of some 625 square miles with a population of 230,000 people.” And when Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland a year later, why didn’t the British and French declare war on the Soviet Union too?

    3. You have probably read and seen a lot about the JFK assassination. Was Oswald the only shooter? The controversy focuses on disputes about rifle accuracy and other oddities. It is rare for anyone to mention hard proof, like James Tague, who was hit by concrete fragments from an unexplained stray bullet that hit a curb. There is even a photo of the damaged curb and that of a police officer handing the bullet to an FBI agent, then it disappeared.

    Warren Commission lab tests indicated a different type of bullet residue on the curb than used by Oswald, and no one explained the odd next-day curb patch over. In rare cases when this “fourth bullet” issue is brought up, no one offers a reasonable explanation, yet the lone shooter story has become official “history.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    Hi Carlton. Thanks for the encouragement. I was looking at your g2mil website and there is some interesting material there as well.

    ...USA spent $5 billion to take over Ukraine...
     
    Uh, yeah, as for the 5 billion dollars spent by the Nuland bitch to mess up Ukraine.... I dunno... I guess one should take it at face value. Why would she say that if it's not true? That said, it's a mind-boggling sum of money, isn't it? I mean, even 5 billion dollars spent freely in the U.S. to buy off politicians etcetera and pay rent-a-mobs and so forth, that could go pretty far, but if you think about just how much money that is in a country like Ukraine where a typical worker makes a few hundred dollars a month if he's lucky... I don't know how it was disbursed. I mean, I guess some of it is through some network of foundations that promote democracy (sic) and all that, but some of it must just be straight suitcases of cash to pay these rent-a-mobs and so forth. But, I mean, the bitch is there, says that they spent 5 billion and there is no outcry asking for an accounting. But jaysus, it's a huge sum of money. I mean if it was 5 million or even 50 million, that's petty cash at the U.S. federal budget level, but 5 billion!? Okay, over a space of some years, but still...

    But the other thing is that you'll get the western MSM talking like there was some spontaneous popular revolution in Ukraine and just pretending that the U.S. had no role in actively fomenting any of it. And then this bitch is there right on youtube saying that they spent 5 billion!!!

    And when Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland a year later, why didn’t the British and French declare war on the Soviet Union too?
     
    Well, I guess the answer is that the people who manufactured the crisis over the Polish Corridor were out to demonize Germany and get a war going with Germany, not with the USSR. You're right, if they were really concerned about protecting Poland's sovereignty, they should have been just as angry at Stalin as at Hitler, no? The same people basically tried to create a crisis over the Sudetenland in 1938, an area that was 90%+ ethnic German, where the overwheling majority of people there wanted to join Germany. It's very reminiscent actually of what happened with Crimea recently. But that whole thing is completely misrepresented, I think, in the conventional history that we are taught.

    So, yeah, you have this basic unanswered question there as well when they tell you that Britain and France declared war on Germany because Germany invaded Poland. And then they don't mention the Russians coming in from the other side. So, yeah, that's like unanswered question #1138 or something...

    I mean, in my article, I posed a big honking over-arching sort of question, which is why the U.S. was so determined to back Stalin against Hitler. They were fans of Soviet communism suddenly? WTF? I just ask the question. Now, I do say that the answer to the question probably has something to do with the power of Jewish lobbies. But still, I'm basically just posing the question.

    ...JFK assassination. Was Oswald the only shooter?
     
    Uh, I'm pretty sure that Oswald was just a pure patsy, never shot anybody in his blessed life. It's true that Oswald was in the Marines so he did some shooting then as part of the basic training, but he was not a sharpshooter or anything like that. I think there's testimony from people who knew him back when and he was an extremely mediocre shot. No, there were professional assassins involved, hard-core sharpshooter types, and Oswald was just the designated fall guy.
  45. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Excellent article, once again, Jonathin.

    Keep writing.

    lol

    Read More
  46. fnn says:
    @Sam Shama
    Heck no. It is not an exaggeration to say that pretty much the great majority of the world wants to live with American freedom and wealth. Yeah sure if you ask people in their native countries they would patriotically say they want their own. Well that is fine, except it is not reality when push comes to shove and they are given the option. Reality is if we adopted an open border policy, more people would want to come in than leave, guaranteed. Think about that. What Americans did by helping the Russians was prevent Hitler and he Nazis from winning. We need to crack a few eggs, to achieve our goals, that is reality. Can you tell me that the lives of the Russians would have been better under Nazis? The Germans today are better off today because Hitler and his boys were defeated. Jonathan Revusky is pretending he has come up with some great theory by sitting in his island and making generalizations. Nothing in REALITY is ever that simple. And no one should forget that if they think the U.S. did something they consider "bad", the Nazis, the Russians, the muslims would do things 100x worse if they had the opportunity. We cannot let them have it. Period.

    Can you tell me that the lives of the Russians would have been better under Nazis? The Germans today are better off today because Hitler and his boys were defeated.

    Russians are massively dysfunctional today and this is really nothing new. They have low birth rates, high levels of alcoholism, fantastic levels of corruption, homicide rates at almost Sub-Saharan levels and an economy dependent on resource extraction. The most talented are leaving. German occupation of Soviet territory was of course generally harsh in the conquered Soviet territory, but varied widely from region to region and we don’t know how it would have evolved. After all, the Germans were fighting the greatest war in history with severe shortages of oil and food. They had nothing remotely comparable to the Texas oilfields or the Midwestern Breadbasket.

    Germans today are spiritually dead and racing toward extinction. In the Federal Republic, births last exceeded deaths in 1971. They have had a TFR way below replacement for decades. With the recent influx of migrants, ethnic Germans will be a minority of males 20-35 within two years.

    Russia:

    https://alfinnextlevel.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/3689/

    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/04/26/the-hollow-men/

    http://www.rferl.org/contentinfographics/how-the-mafia-and-politics-merge-in-russia/27719894.html

    Read More
  47. utu says:

    The question about the blowback theory can be illuminate by looking at the origin of terrorism. Where it was invented and by whom? Menachem Begin claimed the credit for the invention:

    “Begin proudly admitted his terrorism in an interview for American television. When the interviewer asked him ‘How does it feel in the light of all that’s going on, to be the father of terrorism in the Middle East?’ Begin proclaimed ‘In the Middle East? In all the world!” – page 61

    http://www.amazon.com/Against-Our-Better-Judgment-History/dp/149591092X

    How about the suicide bombers? How Tamil Tigers became suicide bombers?. Who trained Tamil Tigers? There is a big untold story about Mossad involvement in Sri Lanka. Victor Ostrovsky talked about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    The question about the blowback theory can be illuminate by looking at the origin of terrorism. Where it was invented and by whom? Menachem Begin claimed the credit for the invention:
     
    Well, to be clear about one thing, the various terrorism that Menachem Begin was involved in is not what I would call "blowback". To me, that specifically means when people from some faroff place show up in London or New York or Paris, say, and kill people because they are angry about whatever government policies. Menachem Begin was leader of the Irgun when they blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. He didn't go (or send agents) to London, say, to blow up a hotel in London.

    Now, don't take that to mean that I'm defending Menachem Begin either!

    Similarly, I wouldn't say that the IRA related violence that takes place in Ireland itself is "blowback". As regards the Irish example, I did an interview with Kevin Barrett on his Truth Jihad show last week and that topic came up. I admitted my ignorance of the matter but Kevin said that he believed that all of that had a huge false flag component. As I said, I haven't researched it but I have no reason to doubt what Kevin told me.

    We actually discussed that on the show a bit and I made a point of pointing out how implausible the whole "blowback terrorism" narrative really is. I mean, suppose the Chinese Liberation Army was occupying New York or California. Do you think it would occur to many Americans to try to make their way to some nowheresville place in China and kill some random Chinese people there as a response to that? Like the Chinese equivalent of San Berndardino wherever that might be?!

    I mean, if you sit down and think about it seriously, it's really a very strange story. It is reminiscent to me of the lone nut gunman narrative. I mean, okay, it's possible that somebody disturbed could grab a gun and go shoot somebody he doesn't even know for no obvious reason, but again, it's not something that is really going to happen very often. What you have in American history, in the sixties, you have 3 major political assassinations, the two Kennedy brothers, and also Martin Luther King, and all are attributed to some lone nut showing up and shooting the person for no very real reason. I mean, even without getting into any detailed analysis of the events in question, what is the objective likelihood that those 3 assassinations are what they are presented as, lone nuts showing up and shooting somebody for no reason?

    But, in any case, there is a huge body of independent research into those assassinations (in particular, JFK obviously) and it all shows that the lone nuts in question were just patsies who were set up to take the blame.
  48. joe webb says:

    SO MANY BORING WORDS AND WORSE WITH REGARD TO IDEAS.

    Rid yourself of all this dopey thinking and get grounded in evolution, genes, HBD. These are the fundamentals which were not available to Orwell, especially since he was a leftie/anarchist and would have refused to read the socio-biology that was around in his time…too hitlerish, you know.

    Orwell totally missed Race, like all lefties and myself somewhat later. The zeitgeist was anti-hitler and anti essence and anti race thinking.

    Now everything becomes clear with hbd or socio-biology, identical twin studies, and the failure of all the dark races to enter White standards of intellectual and civil life. The Jewish Power opposed the human genome project and still does.

    All the rest is a waste of time. Here we are at the beginning of the counter-revolution and folks are talking about movies, science fiction, which are neither scientific nor fiction in the ordinary high-brow meaning of the word fiction.

    Nobody but whites have invented liberty, free speech, rule of law, etc. never mind kissing and The Holy Family. The jews never invented anything in this regard, and it goes double for oriental despotism (Tacitus used the term ……) which is world-wide except Africa, where it is even worse…Presidents for Life everywhere on the Darkie continent.

    You guys are pretty dopey.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
  49. utu says:
    @libtard
    It seems there's just enough BDQ in your (Jonathan's) arguments to qualify you as an HIQI.

    For example, "blowbacks". You wonder why there were no "deep" events of this nature during the "entire period of the British empire" -- and therefore the term blowback couldn't have been invented then. Conveniently forgetting the IRA are you? And never taking into account the ease of travel since the sun set on Her Majesty's Union Jack, or the greater size of the immigrant populations in modern urban centers! Nor do you mention the increased ease of preparing blowback events with weapons that cause massive casualties, which would have been much more difficult to obtain for would-be out-for-revenge "terrorists" in the waning days of the British empire.

    Yes you do mention the Vietnamese populations in the US, but it seems hardly likely that this community would be vengeful for the bombing of villages and the killing of innocents. The stateside Vietnamese population only became significant during the fall of the South, and most of the "boat people" who arrived here were fleeing from the expected communist takeover, and were not imbued with an ideology of total war against the foreign occupier of their homelands. So why would you expect any blowback from them?

    Then for WW2, you describe the conventional narrative as starting from 22 June 1941. This is total bollocks. It makes your 3 "options" look ridiculous -- as if the US corporate elite's only concern about the war had to do with the survival (or not) of the Soviet Union. And how do you explain the option 3 you claim was behind US and British "help" for Joe Stalin? By resorting to one of the most tried-and-true (but actually false) myths about Jewish political power being responsible for this. ZPC may be a real phenomenon in the Iraq war and the current interventions in the Middle East, but you do not provide one iota of supporting evidence for this influencing US/British policies in WW2. Talk about TITT all you want. Where's the remedial education you said was needed?

    “By resorting to one of the most tried-and-true (but actually false) myths about Jewish political power being responsible for this.”

    (1) Charles Lindberg. Des Moines Speech: Delivered in Des Moines, Iowa, on September 11, 1941.

    “The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.”

    “I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.”

    (2) Polish Ambassador at Washington, Count Jerzy Potocki, in a report to the Polish Foreign Office, dated January 12, 1939

    “Public opinion in America nowadays expresses itself in an increasing hatred of everything . . . connected with National Socialism. Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish hands . . . [W]hen bearing public ignorance in mind, their propaganda is so effective that people here have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe . . . It is interesting to observe that this carefully thought-out campaign — which is primarily conducted against National Socialism — no reference at all is made to Soviet Russia. If that country is mentioned, it is referred to in a friendly manner and people are given the impression that Soviet Russia is part of the democratic group of countries.”

    “I]ndividual Jewish intellectuals such as Bernard Baruch, Lehman, Governor of New York State, Felix Frankfurter, the newly appointed Supreme Court Judge, Morgenthau, the Financial Secretary, and other well-known personal friends of Roosevelt have taken a prominent part in this campaign of hatred. All of them want the President to become the protagonist of human liberty, religious freedom and the right of free speech . . .

    This particular group of people, who are all in highly placed American official positions and who are desirous of being representatives of ‘true Americanism’, and as ‘Champions of Democracy’, are, in point of fact, linked with international Jewry by ties incapable of being torn asunder.

    For international Jewry — so intimately concerned with the interests of its own race — President Roosevelt’s ‘ideal’ role as a champion of human rights was indeed a godsend. In this way Jewry was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike camps. The whole problem is being tackled in a most mysterious manner. Roosevelt has been given the power to enable him to enliven American foreign policy and at the same time to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for.”

    Read More
  50. @Jonathan Revusky

    Mostly valid, but you’ve got the timeline of WW2 wrong.

     

    Uhh, no, I beg to differ. I just quickly reread the parts that I wrote above that relate to WW2 and, at no point, did I get any timeline wrong.

    Granted, I did not include the full history of WW2, but that was not the goal of the essay.

    What I did was I simply pointed out that Germany invaded the Soviet Union and both the Britain and the U.S.A. pulled out all the stops to save the Soviet Union from collapse and I posed the question: why? That does not involve getting any timeline wrong.

    In fact, it is very symptomatic of TITT explanations that the TITT mongers mess up the timeline. You'll find that event A is followed by event B and TITT mongers will imply that B caused A. If I committed any such mistake in the essay, by all means, you should tell me so, but I do not believe that I did.

    By the time Hitler pushed into Russia, he had already taken France, and was already bombing Britain.

     

    Well, frankly, the reversal of cause and effect is utterly typical of TITT argumentation, as is question-begging generally. I posed the question in the essay of why Britain remained in the war explicitly to save Stalin's ass and your explanation is that "Hitler... was already bombing Britain". Now, first of all, Hitler was bombing Britain because Churchill started bombing Germany. (Go look at the timeline.) But aside from that, Germany and Britain were bombing one another precisely because they remained at war!

    No, it is not that Britain remained at war with Germany because Germany was bombing Britain. Germany was bombing Britain because Britain chose to remain at war with Germany! This kind of reversal of logical cause and effect is utterly typical of TITT explanations of history!

    Of course, even aside from the reversal of cause and effect that you engage in (Germany bombing Britain caused Britain to remain in the war rather than the other way round) that still doesn't explain the desire of the U.S.A. to bail out the Soviets. The U.S. was, of course, not being bombed by Germany.

    Straightforward strategy. You don’t need a deeper explanation for this.
     
    LOL. Well, speak for yourself. Maybe you don't feel any need to seek a deeper explanation of these events. I do.

    The general U.S. public was led to believe that they got into a war in Afghanistan (and later Iraq) because several skyscrapers in NYC were destroyed. But that is superficial politics. The person who understands deep politics knows that the buildings were blown up in Manhattan because the U.S.A. (well, specifically a faction of anglo-zionist deep politics) wanted these wars. They needed an enabling event and 9/11 was that enabling event.

    Again, the events of 9/11 were caused by the desire (of certain people, a certain faction) to get into the wars that followed. The wars that followed were not caused by 9/11!

    Well, in short, after years, more like decades, of propagandizing, we would all do well to recognize TITTs when we see them, no?

    If 9/11 was not some sort of Zio-conspiracy, then Larry Silverstein is the luckiest Jew in history.

    Read More
  51. @Jonathan Revusky

    I would like to think your article will help in the fight to unmask the Left,

     

    Hmm, I'm frankly puzzled by your desire to frame this as a right/left thing. The title of the essay is about "reclaiming reality" and reality just exists. It's not really right or left. In fact at the very end, I basically am saying that right/left is hardly even relevant if you're not connected with objective reality.

    Now, I grant that telling the truth straightforwardly about certain things could be interpreted as right or left. For example, if you point out that Bruce Jenner is not a woman, but rather, simply a man wearing a dress, people could say that is a right-wing statement. But, to me, it's just the truth, it's not right-wing or left-wing. To tell the truth about these Wall Street bloodsuckers is taken to be left-wing, I suppose, but to me, again, if something is true, it's not left or right. It's just true.

    I believe more and more that the Right vs. Left tension is largely just a form of misdirection. Misdirection is by far the most important tool in the magician’s toolkit.

    Read More
  52. @iffen
    You tell people a bullshit story and if they don’t believe it, it’s because they are not in tune with the ineffable… inscrutable… elusive… nature of…. the interconnected… cosmic….. flying pigs…

    My point exactly.


    Dude, I wrote 9400 words above. I put some real work into that. And this is the best you can do?

    I feel no regret.

    Bullshit piled ten stories high is still bullshit.

    You’re a Jew, aren’t you.

    Read More
  53. Art says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    You've made some valid points but diluted your point by attacking JR personally. By all means take issue with anything in the article and it's likely he'll respond. I'd say he'd likely relish doing it. Much of it made sense to me which is why I grace The Unz Review.

    Conflating some Jewish involvement in a conspiracy as to meaning ALL Jewish involvement in it , I really think is counter productive. Is it possible that the tribe you refer to has also been infiltrated? William Cooper always maintained that was the case. Any thoughts?

    Conflating some Jewish involvement in a conspiracy as to meaning ALL Jewish involvement in it , I really think is counter productive. Is it possible that the tribe you refer to has also been infiltrated?

    Maybe you have a reasonable explanation for why Israeli nukes cannot be discussed in America? Certainly it is a grave human problem. It is hard not to think conspiracy.

    85% of Jews are Zionists. This figure was given to me by a knowledgeable Jew. It is a reasonable percentage, maybe to small but a fare workable number. So is it not unreasonable to use the word Jew when talking about Jews. They may not like it, but that is how most people see them – not as Zionists, not as religious people – but as Jews.

    Mr. Revusky wrote 9,600 words on the disposition of conspiracy in America and not one of them was Jew or Zionist or Israel. How can that be?

    Mr. Revusky is a big boy – he is free to explain himself. Perhaps he has a perfect explanation – I am waiting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Mr. Revusky is a big boy – he is free to explain himself. Perhaps he has a perfect explanation – I am waiting.
     
    Excuse me, Art. What is it that I am supposed to "explain"? Obviously, I have no explanation of why you lack elementary reading comprehension.

    I said that we should avoid using the word "conspiracy" because the term had been overloaded. You apparently took that to mean that I was saying that there actually were no conspiracies, that nobody ever conspired! And then you constructed a rant based on a misinterpretation (180 degrees away) of what I was actually saying!

    Not only did you completely misunderstand my comments about "conspiracy", you seem to have misunderstood my point about "blowback". The incidents that the left-liberal intelligentsia refers to as "blowback", I am fairly certain that they are false flags. That is the theory A (analogous to the earth revolving around the sun) that I was referring to. I thought that was obvious, but maybe it wasn't...

    My suggestion to you is that, rather than demand explanations from me, based on your own incomprehension of what I was saying, go back and read the essay again and satisfy yourself that you actually understood it. Then feel free to rejoin the discussion.
  54. Long and articulate but ultimately the bulk of your essay does not lead to your conclusions. Indeed it denies them.

    For all of your conspiracy theories no-one ever proposes a theory A, as you put it. Nor do you for 9/11, for example. Or anything at all…

    Instead you are content to just say ‘the earth can not go round the Sun as what force could possibly make it do that’ or the WTC7 could not have fallen from the fires as you don’t understand it. Where is your theory A?

    In other words the key points of your essay defeat your HIQI conclusions, which is amusing!

    Oh wait… You make the invocation ‘Jewish power.’ Well done Revusky your purported theory A to any and everything is just ‘Jewish power.’

    Well that is not a theory. It is a magical incantation.

    So propose a theory, actually try and explain something. You will quickly find that anything you say will be imperfect because knowledge is imperfect. The problem for your theories however will be that they will be more flawed and less perfect than the real Theory As like the standard account of 9/11 and so on.

    Basically we need to have a leading theory and you propose no alternatives….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Instead you are content to just say ‘the earth can not go round the Sun as what force could possibly make it do that’ or the WTC7 could not have fallen from the fires as you don’t understand it. Where is your theory A?
     
    Theory A, a.k.a. the theory that the orange actually is an orange, is that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. (I thought everybody knew that...)

    Oh wait… You make the invocation ‘Jewish power.’ Well done Revusky your purported theory A to any and everything is just ‘Jewish power.’
     
    I never said, at any point, that Jewish power "explains everything." I simply implied that, for many historical events, it is enough of a factor that any explanation that deliberately excludes it cannot possibly constitute a complete, correct explanation. In other words, if mentioning Jewish power is a taboo regarding many aspects of WW2, the resulting explanations are, in my terminology, TITTs.

    The same applies to all these military adventures labelled "Global War on Terror". If you believe that you can explain how we got into this mess with no mention of Judaeo-Zionist lobbies, this means that you have no understanding, no political judgment, sorry. It's obviously a key factor, and any attempt to explain the situation without that will be a TITT.

    Basically we need to have a leading theory and you propose no alternatives….
     
    First of all, your basic argumentation is fallacious. My rejecting a given theory as false does not imply any obligation on my part to provide an alternative theory. I can state confidently that the creation story in the Bible is not literally true, yet not provide any alternative theory. In fact, I can perfectly well state that the Genesis story is false yet, when asked how the world came into being, state that I do not know. There is no inherent contradiction in that.

    By the same token, I could state that I do not believe O.J. killed his wife yet have no idea who actually did. There is no inherent contradiction in that either. Basically, you are playing with the "argument from ignorance" fallacy, which, as I said, is very much stock in trade for TITT mongers. One of the basic repertoire of logical fallacies, obviously....

    But, in any case, the alternative theory to "blowback", theory A, is that these are Deep State false flag operations. That is what 9/11, 7/7, and these recent events in Paris and Brussels pretty much certainly are. Blowback is the TITT explanation because the correct theory A is a taboo -- at least if you want to keep writing on Counterpunch and HuffingtonPost and be invited back onto Democracy Now and so forth...
    , @iffen
    It is a magical incantation.

    I think the entire article fits this description.

    He is aware of the power inherent in controlling the meaning of words like conspiracy, anti-Semite, race, etc. and how they are used, he just doesn't know what to do with that realization.
  55. libtard says:

    @Jonathan Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comments, not just with one posting, but with two: #18 and #20.

    Curiously (or not), you miss the substance of the points I raised and claim them instead to fit your model of reality/truth. When I point out that the conditions for blowback as we know them today did not exist under the old British empire, you turn that around and say that since there was no blowback, it proves your point — although it does just the opposite. And of course you ignore my allusion to a “deep event” condition, to wit, the “troubles” in Ireland, which eventually did lead to bombings in the British imperial homeland. These were indeed “blowback” events even if nobody ever labeled them as such.

    As to which recent events qualify as “pure” blowback — a legitimate question — I have no way of really knowing. I do believe there was at least an element of blowback in every one of the events you listed: 9/11, 7/7, San Bernardino, Paris and Brussels. The degree of involvement of a deep state in any of those events is beyond my ability to fully assess, not because of some taboo (I do think there was deep state involvement), but simply because ironclad conclusive evidence is not currently available.

    As to WW2, even if you did not claim that 22 June 1941 was the start of the war, the selection of that date was hardly innocent. Why select a date at all if it wasn’t an attempt to add “hyper-emotionalism” to your argument? If you started with 30 September 1938, with the Munich agreement, where PM Chamberlain allowed German troops to occupy the Sudetenland (in an ill-conceived attempt to get Hitler to attack the USSR), or if you had started with 1 September 1939 with the German invasion of Poland, it would have given your argument a wholly different emotional tenor, and provided a more logical place for understanding the later support given by capitalist governments to the USSR.

    If you really think that Jewish political power was critical to the Lend-Lease agreements with the USSR, when Britain was already at war with Germany for about a year and a half, and Germany was occupying multiple allied countries in Europe, then you need to provide some evidence. Stalin is not generally seen as a friend of the Jewish political elite, so it would seem strange that the latter would want to help the former. But politics, as they say, makes for strange bedfellows. Perhaps you could explain why the US provided North Korea with $1.3 billion in food and energy assistance between 1995 and 2008? Are there any Jews in North Korea?

    On the other hand, I would say tha the evidence is quite clear that Jewish political power is a factor in recent US interventions in the Middle East — even a major one. Whether that alone is enough to explain the boneheaded American interventions, I am much less sure. There are at least a couple of other lobbies, intertwined in many instances with ZPC, which would need to be taken into account in any serious analysis of these events. If ZPC was the only factor, then presumably Washington would have already attacked Iran rather than signing a treaty with it.

    Where I take sides with /, who you insulted gratuitously #22, is that reality is not all black and white. There are, at least, 50 shades of grey :) You claim you are neither left or right, only seeking the truth — which is laudable. But what you have presented is only a model of the truth, and one that I cannot completely hold to. The truth, and the reality you claim to be reclaiming, always manage to escape us somehow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    I probably cannot reply to every point you are making. I mean, I could, systematically, but I don't think I'm willing to put in the time. It becomes very time-consuming to reply to somebody who tends to twist things you say in a rather dishonest manner, who is constantly straw-manning. That does seem to be your case, and, really, if you do have the intellectual curiosity to continue the conversation, you will have to raise your level, or you can expect that this is my last response to you.

    First of all, on Ireland proving something, I mean something general, this is rather dubious simply because Ireland is such a special case. Ireland was hardly the typical British colony. For starters, there is no important racial difference between Irish and English such that one could tell them apart. The Irish speak the same language as the English. Also, for all of it (and the Irishmen here can get mad at me, but so be it...) what cultural differences there are are actually quite subtle.

    What this means, of course, is that it is very very easy for Irish people to move about in England without calling too much attention to themselves. On the other hand, it also means that it is orders of magnitude easier for agents of the British State to infiltrate Irish nationalist groups, since infiltrating other sorts of nationalist groups requires linguistic/cultural skills that few Brits possess! (Aside from the basic racial problem!)

    Now, yes, there is a centuries-old problem of sectarian violence between Irish Catholics and anglo-protestants in Ireland. Almost all of that sectarian violence took place in Ireland itself and thus, by any reasonable definition, does not constitute "blowback" anyway. You have to look at IRA bombings that took place in Britain. First of all, there is a wikipedia page listing all of these incidents in Britain and one thing that is striking is how few of them there really are. I think the bloodiest decade of IRA terrorism in all of Britain is something on the order of 30 dead. In a decade. Like 3 people a year or something like that, that's it. You have a lot of bombs that went off and didn't hurt anybody but made headline news, but that is.... well... Anyway 3 people whacked i a typical year. Bad if you're one of those three people, but on a national level, you can say this was always a non-problem.

    Now, the other aspect of this is that, what few incidents there are that you could call blowback, we still haven't established that they really were. They could perfectly well have been Deep State false flags as well! In fact, in a conversation I had with Kevin Barrett last week where this came up (actually, you can find it on noliesradio.org) Kevin said that this stuff was also false flag. I said I didn't know. Because I didn't and don't. I suspect that you don't know either really.

    In any case, if whatever happened with the IRA were the only bona fide blowback that the British Empire ever faced, does this not mean that there is something fishy about claiming that "blowback" is this very important general phenomenon? I mean, for many decades, the line was that the sun never set on the British Empire. And it was true. It was a vast collection of territories. And, no, I do not believe there was some huge problem that made blowback logistically difficult. A determined colonial or group of colonial subjects could make their way to London and blow up a building. They just never did.

    No, it is completely clear to me that if blowback were an important general problem, the British Empire should have had a significant blowback problem. This is a simple, common-sense. Again, the onus is on the other side of the debate. If you claim that blowback is this big phenomenon, why did the British Empire not have really any blowback problem to speak of?

    I have a very simple explanation personally, which is that blowback doesn't really exist!

    If you really think that Jewish political power was critical to the Lend-Lease agreements with the USSR, when Britain was already at war with Germany for about a year and a half, and Germany was occupying multiple allied countries in Europe, then you need to provide some evidence.
     
    Well, you've really got to stop putting words in my mouth. I did not say it was "critical". I did not say that because I do not claim to know for sure. You will note generally that I am actually quite careful about making such claims. You, however, do not seem to be similarly careful about making claims, in particular, about what I allegedly said, even when there is a clear electronic record right on this very page of what I actually did say!

    I do not believe there is any serious doubt that a Jewish power bloc that, at the time, was already quite powerful, was lobbying to take the U.S. into the war. There were also anglophile elements and people who were outright agents of the British state operating with that same goal. There also may be overlap between the two aforementioned groups. I, at no point, claimed that I knew which factor was "critical". You are putting words in my mouth, that is not honest, and you should stop if you wish to continue any discussion with me.

    What I simply argue is that the Jewish power bloc was a real factor in the history and an attempt to recount the history excluding such an important element is bound to lead to explanations that are not really satisfactory.

    Perhaps you could explain why the US provided North Korea with $1.3 billion in food and energy assistance between 1995 and 2008? Are there any Jews in North Korea?
     
    Okay, frankly, it is beneath my dignity to respond to such a blatantly dishonest straw-man argument. It should be beneath your dignity as well to truck in such blatant straw men. At no point did I ever say that Jewish lobbies explained everything. Nor did I ever claim that Jewish lobbies were the sole explanatory factor of events. In the case of WW2, the Jewish lobby is a sufficiently important factor that an explanation that leaves it out is bound to be incomplete/false.

    Also, there is this very tricky lowering of the bar. You are implying that if you can prove that Jewish lobbies have nothing to do with food aid to North Korea, then this means you have demonstrated that Jewish lobbies had nothing to do with getting the U.S.A. into WW2! That is a blatant fallacy.

    Now, this business with the food aid to North Korea, it is so blatantly fallacious that I have to think that it was willfully dishonest. You knew it was a fallacious argument yet presented it anyway. I am pretty sure that you consciously made a dishonest argument. You cannot do that. Or you can, but obviously, I will simply opt to end any interaction with you. So you have to come clean on this or our conversation definitely ends.

    So I would like an apology for this. You can bitch and moan and take this personally, but I feel that I have to demand a certain level of discourse from people if I am going to invest the time to talk to them.

    I do believe there was at least an element of blowback in every one of the events you listed: 9/11, 7/7, San Bernardino, Paris and Brussels.
     
    Well, I infer that you believe this because this is the explanation that the mainstream media has offered. Have you read any of the independent research that suggests otherwise?

    Also, the same media telling you these things also tells you that WTC7 imploded from office fires. So these people are proven liars.

    Where I take sides with /, who you insulted gratuitously #22, is that reality is not all black and white.
     
    Excuse me, I do not, as a general rule gratuitously insult people. The person I was responding to (iffen) is such a blatant troll that, I think you must be affecting not to realize that. I think you have to stop being so dishonest and making dishonest arguments.

    Again, this business that I am supposed to explain how Jewish lobbies have something to do with food aid to North Korea -- I would like an apology for that. It's such a pathetically blatant dishonest argument, and I am fairly sure that you knew it was a dishonest argument when you made it.

    The title of my essay is about reclaiming reality, but we also have to reclaim honesty along the way. That was such a blatantly dishonest sort of argument that I feel it was disrespectful and insulting on your part. I believe you should apologize for that.
  56. Max Payne says:

    Eh. The whole WTC7 thing isn’t as shady as it appears.

    CIA, along with DoD and IRS had rented some offices in that building. Source:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/05/archive/main316911.shtml

    Once the attack occurred I’m sure the CIA officers there assumed the nation was under some military assault and started erasing data and burning files like mad (this is 2001, before the age of ‘smartphones’ in which paper still meant something). Due to the completely incompetent action of the CIA (heh) the fire got out of control, and the owner/lease holder allowed the fire department to collapse the building.

    Source (Larry Silverstein, lease owner):

    That’s it. That’s why it wasn’t mentioned. It had nothing to do with the attacks and more with CIA overreaction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    WTC 7 collapsed so soon after the other two buildings that there wouldn't have been time to rig it with explosives on the fly for a proper controlled demolition. The building had to have been primed beforehand.

    Since most of the truther theories I am familiar with indict the deep state and Larry Silversteen (who owned all three buildings) as part of the plot, this could well just be another cover story cooked up after the fact. It seems likely that they were expecting a third plane to hit WTC 7, but that it crashed in a farm field in Pennsylvania. This would have left them with little choice but to bring it down, as the building was now on fire (owing to the débris from the other buildings, which had just collapsed) and was already rigged with explosives in preparation for the third plane. They had to get rid of the evidence, rather than just let it sit there until the NYFD found it.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    Once the attack occurred I’m sure the CIA officers there assumed the nation was under some military assault and started erasing data and burning files like mad...(snip)... to collapse the building
     
    Max, just out of idle curiosity, is the above your own theory that you came up with yourself or are did you read this somewhere?

    Of course, needless to say, it's beyond absurd. There is no way to effect the perfectly symmetrical implosion of a steel-framed building by burning a bunch of paper documents. But I was just kinda wondering where this story came from.
  57. @Art

    Conflating some Jewish involvement in a conspiracy as to meaning ALL Jewish involvement in it , I really think is counter productive. Is it possible that the tribe you refer to has also been infiltrated?
     
    Maybe you have a reasonable explanation for why Israeli nukes cannot be discussed in America? Certainly it is a grave human problem. It is hard not to think conspiracy.

    85% of Jews are Zionists. This figure was given to me by a knowledgeable Jew. It is a reasonable percentage, maybe to small but a fare workable number. So is it not unreasonable to use the word Jew when talking about Jews. They may not like it, but that is how most people see them – not as Zionists, not as religious people – but as Jews.

    Mr. Revusky wrote 9,600 words on the disposition of conspiracy in America and not one of them was Jew or Zionist or Israel. How can that be?

    Mr. Revusky is a big boy – he is free to explain himself. Perhaps he has a perfect explanation – I am waiting.

    Mr. Revusky is a big boy – he is free to explain himself. Perhaps he has a perfect explanation – I am waiting.

    Excuse me, Art. What is it that I am supposed to “explain”? Obviously, I have no explanation of why you lack elementary reading comprehension.

    I said that we should avoid using the word “conspiracy” because the term had been overloaded. You apparently took that to mean that I was saying that there actually were no conspiracies, that nobody ever conspired! And then you constructed a rant based on a misinterpretation (180 degrees away) of what I was actually saying!

    Not only did you completely misunderstand my comments about “conspiracy”, you seem to have misunderstood my point about “blowback”. The incidents that the left-liberal intelligentsia refers to as “blowback”, I am fairly certain that they are false flags. That is the theory A (analogous to the earth revolving around the sun) that I was referring to. I thought that was obvious, but maybe it wasn’t…

    My suggestion to you is that, rather than demand explanations from me, based on your own incomprehension of what I was saying, go back and read the essay again and satisfy yourself that you actually understood it. Then feel free to rejoin the discussion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    I said that we should avoid using the word “conspiracy” because the term had been overloaded. You apparently took that to mean that I was saying that there actually were no conspiracies, that nobody ever conspired!

    From the article: In popular usage, the person who believes in conspiracies, the conspiracy theorist, is taken to be self-evidently crazy and anything he says can be dismissed out of hand.
     
    You are correct – I got it wrong – you said it right – I miss read the thrust of your article - I apologize for my negative words ----- Art

    From the article: Once you recognize that a word has become effectively unusable, you just have to look for an alternative term to use. In the case of “conspiracy”, I would propose that we talk more in terms of “deep events” and “deep politics”.
     
    May I disagree, adding the word “theory” to the word “conspiracy” changes the whole complexion and meaning of the thought. “Theory” automatically puts the “conspiracy” in question.

    Faint heart never won fair maiden. Conspiracy is a strong word with large implications – it should stand along. Using something else is weak. A conspiracy is a conspiracy is a conspiracy.
  58. @imnobody00
    This article summarizes much of my thought in a clear manner so I want to thank you. But you should be more careful with the details of your examples lest you lose credibility. For example, the Earth's being at the center of the Universe was never a Catholic dogma. A better example for your TITTs may be the epicicles that bolstered geocentric theory. Or the way that all scientists believed planets moved in circles out of a comment from Plato. When Kepler discovered that orbits were not circular, he was devastated.

    I am intrigued by your explanation of World War II. I think you should have explained it more. I am still not sure that Anglo countries trying to stop Hitler to become the new hegemonic power was not enough. Germany was triumphant at this point of the war and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". This does not preclude other interests and I am not against other explanations as you suggest (although I would have preferred that you explain it with more detail) but I cannot assess the truth of an explanation without knowing this explanation first. Maybe you could link to a web page or a book to learn more.

    For example, the Earth’s being at the center of the Universe was never a Catholic dogma.

    Well, okay, my sense of things is that I may have been taught an oversimplified version of what happened in grade school. Regardless, if you just google a string like “heliocentric heresy” you quickly run into pages that say that Galileo, for example, was tried for heresy precisely for saying that the earth went round the sun. It maybe a bit more nuanced than that, but for the purposes of my article, I think what I said is okay.

    You see, the real point is that if somebody is constrained to explain events (solar eclipses, the seasons, whatever…) and must base his explanation on the notion that the sun goes round the earth, you can know pretty well that the explanation is not going to be correct.

    Moreover, you can know this without any specialized domain expertise.

    That is the TITT concept, that a taboo causes you to construct contrived, tortuous explanations of things, when the correct explanation is right under your nose. Of course, the whole astronomy thing is just a lead-in. Obviously, my intent was to apply this concept to political analysis! For example, in another part of this conversation, somebody brought up the vast amounts of money that the U.S. spent specifically to destabilize Ukraine. If somebody tries to explain what happened in Ukraine but has to pretend that it had nothing to do with agitation financed by the U.S. government, any explanation they come up with will be very contrived and incorrect.

    I am intrigued by your explanation of World War II. I think you should have explained it more.

    Well, first of all, there seems to be a misreading here. I did not provide an “explanation” of WW2 and that is obviously way beyond the scope of the essay. If I say that an explanation of the solar eclipse that is based on the sun going round the earth cannot possibly be correct, that is not at all the same as offering an explanation myself! I am simply saying that any correct explanation must be based on the earth going round the sun.

    So, in general, if your explanation of any event glosses over key aspects of a situation because it’s taboo to mention them, the explanation cannot be satisfactory. I am completely satisfied that any general description of WW2 that does not mention Jewish political power is going to be largely contrived and false,certainly in many key aspects. But, again, for me to say that does not mean that I am offering a complete history of WW2 myself! Surely you can understand that, no?

    Now, I just searched and found again a video that I think is quite elucidating on this whole matter:

    This is only 9 minutes from a Q&A from a much longer talk. So if you want more detail, you can find hour-long presentations. But in this clip, David Irving outlines that somewhere around 1936, Winston Churchill received a gift, that in present day money, would be on the order of a million dollars, specifically from wealthy Jews. Specifically, a group called “the Focus” that was not exclusively Jewish (like current-day neocons are not exclusively a Jewish group) but very dominated by wealthy British Jews of a certain sort. To all intents an purposes, a Jewish lobby not so very different from current-day AIPAC.

    This video contains the kind of information that would get memory holed when it is a question of constructing, let’s say, the approved kosher history of WW2. The fact that Churchill was bought and paid for by the Jewish lobby of the day is obviously a key part of the puzzle.

    I am still not sure that Anglo countries trying to stop Hitler to become the new hegemonic power was not enough. Germany was triumphant at this point of the war and “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

    Well, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is not really a very satisfactory explanation of the historical juncture I describe in the essay. For starters, it contains question-begging. Yes, if I decide that Peter is my mortal enemy and then Paul is also Peter’s mortal enemy, then Paul is my friend because we have a common enemy. That still begs the question of why I decided that Peter is my mortal enemy! Obviously, if I decided that Paul was my mortal enemy then, by the same token, Peter would be my friend, no?

    In other words, the enemy of my enemy reasoning would justify allying with Germany against the USSR just as well as the other way round. In fact, what you have here is Winston Churchill, an inveterate right-winger reactionary type, who despised Soviet communism, and prior to receiving all that Jewish money, had expressed admiration for Hitler, absolutely determined to bail out the Soviet Union in her hour of need. The video I link above, I think, provides some keys to understanding this.

    Read More
  59. @This Is Our Home
    Long and articulate but ultimately the bulk of your essay does not lead to your conclusions. Indeed it denies them.

    For all of your conspiracy theories no-one ever proposes a theory A, as you put it. Nor do you for 9/11, for example. Or anything at all...

    Instead you are content to just say 'the earth can not go round the Sun as what force could possibly make it do that' or the WTC7 could not have fallen from the fires as you don't understand it. Where is your theory A?

    In other words the key points of your essay defeat your HIQI conclusions, which is amusing!

    Oh wait... You make the invocation 'Jewish power.' Well done Revusky your purported theory A to any and everything is just 'Jewish power.'

    Well that is not a theory. It is a magical incantation.

    So propose a theory, actually try and explain something. You will quickly find that anything you say will be imperfect because knowledge is imperfect. The problem for your theories however will be that they will be more flawed and less perfect than the real Theory As like the standard account of 9/11 and so on.

    Basically we need to have a leading theory and you propose no alternatives....

    Instead you are content to just say ‘the earth can not go round the Sun as what force could possibly make it do that’ or the WTC7 could not have fallen from the fires as you don’t understand it. Where is your theory A?

    Theory A, a.k.a. the theory that the orange actually is an orange, is that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. (I thought everybody knew that…)

    Oh wait… You make the invocation ‘Jewish power.’ Well done Revusky your purported theory A to any and everything is just ‘Jewish power.’

    I never said, at any point, that Jewish power “explains everything.” I simply implied that, for many historical events, it is enough of a factor that any explanation that deliberately excludes it cannot possibly constitute a complete, correct explanation. In other words, if mentioning Jewish power is a taboo regarding many aspects of WW2, the resulting explanations are, in my terminology, TITTs.

    The same applies to all these military adventures labelled “Global War on Terror”. If you believe that you can explain how we got into this mess with no mention of Judaeo-Zionist lobbies, this means that you have no understanding, no political judgment, sorry. It’s obviously a key factor, and any attempt to explain the situation without that will be a TITT.

    Basically we need to have a leading theory and you propose no alternatives….

    First of all, your basic argumentation is fallacious. My rejecting a given theory as false does not imply any obligation on my part to provide an alternative theory. I can state confidently that the creation story in the Bible is not literally true, yet not provide any alternative theory. In fact, I can perfectly well state that the Genesis story is false yet, when asked how the world came into being, state that I do not know. There is no inherent contradiction in that.

    By the same token, I could state that I do not believe O.J. killed his wife yet have no idea who actually did. There is no inherent contradiction in that either. Basically, you are playing with the “argument from ignorance” fallacy, which, as I said, is very much stock in trade for TITT mongers. One of the basic repertoire of logical fallacies, obviously….

    But, in any case, the alternative theory to “blowback”, theory A, is that these are Deep State false flag operations. That is what 9/11, 7/7, and these recent events in Paris and Brussels pretty much certainly are. Blowback is the TITT explanation because the correct theory A is a taboo — at least if you want to keep writing on Counterpunch and HuffingtonPost and be invited back onto Democracy Now and so forth…

    Read More
    • Replies: @This Is Our Home

    Theory A, a.k.a. the theory that the orange actually is an orange, is that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. (I thought everybody knew that…)
     
    That is not a theory which even begins to explain 9/11. I do believe you admit that later though.

    But, in any case, the alternative theory to “blowback”, theory A, is that these are Deep State false flag operations. That is what 9/11, 7/7, and these recent events in Paris and Brussels pretty much certainly are.
     
    Try proposing that theory. You will not be able to as it is absurd. You can neither explain the mechanism nor the motive for it.

    First of all, your basic argumentation is fallacious. My rejecting a given theory as false does not imply any obligation on my part to provide an alternative theory
     
    This is pure sophism and it ends up in the solipsistic dead-end of 'I can only know myself.' All theories are imperfect therefore if perfection is your standard you will have no theories on anything, which means you believe nothing. That is stupid. To live in this world you have to pick the best fitting theory and the normal account of 9/11 is precisely that.
  60. @Jonathan Revusky

    Instead you are content to just say ‘the earth can not go round the Sun as what force could possibly make it do that’ or the WTC7 could not have fallen from the fires as you don’t understand it. Where is your theory A?
     
    Theory A, a.k.a. the theory that the orange actually is an orange, is that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. (I thought everybody knew that...)

    Oh wait… You make the invocation ‘Jewish power.’ Well done Revusky your purported theory A to any and everything is just ‘Jewish power.’
     
    I never said, at any point, that Jewish power "explains everything." I simply implied that, for many historical events, it is enough of a factor that any explanation that deliberately excludes it cannot possibly constitute a complete, correct explanation. In other words, if mentioning Jewish power is a taboo regarding many aspects of WW2, the resulting explanations are, in my terminology, TITTs.

    The same applies to all these military adventures labelled "Global War on Terror". If you believe that you can explain how we got into this mess with no mention of Judaeo-Zionist lobbies, this means that you have no understanding, no political judgment, sorry. It's obviously a key factor, and any attempt to explain the situation without that will be a TITT.

    Basically we need to have a leading theory and you propose no alternatives….
     
    First of all, your basic argumentation is fallacious. My rejecting a given theory as false does not imply any obligation on my part to provide an alternative theory. I can state confidently that the creation story in the Bible is not literally true, yet not provide any alternative theory. In fact, I can perfectly well state that the Genesis story is false yet, when asked how the world came into being, state that I do not know. There is no inherent contradiction in that.

    By the same token, I could state that I do not believe O.J. killed his wife yet have no idea who actually did. There is no inherent contradiction in that either. Basically, you are playing with the "argument from ignorance" fallacy, which, as I said, is very much stock in trade for TITT mongers. One of the basic repertoire of logical fallacies, obviously....

    But, in any case, the alternative theory to "blowback", theory A, is that these are Deep State false flag operations. That is what 9/11, 7/7, and these recent events in Paris and Brussels pretty much certainly are. Blowback is the TITT explanation because the correct theory A is a taboo -- at least if you want to keep writing on Counterpunch and HuffingtonPost and be invited back onto Democracy Now and so forth...

    Theory A, a.k.a. the theory that the orange actually is an orange, is that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. (I thought everybody knew that…)

    That is not a theory which even begins to explain 9/11. I do believe you admit that later though.

    But, in any case, the alternative theory to “blowback”, theory A, is that these are Deep State false flag operations. That is what 9/11, 7/7, and these recent events in Paris and Brussels pretty much certainly are.

    Try proposing that theory. You will not be able to as it is absurd. You can neither explain the mechanism nor the motive for it.

    First of all, your basic argumentation is fallacious. My rejecting a given theory as false does not imply any obligation on my part to provide an alternative theory

    This is pure sophism and it ends up in the solipsistic dead-end of ‘I can only know myself.’ All theories are imperfect therefore if perfection is your standard you will have no theories on anything, which means you believe nothing. That is stupid. To live in this world you have to pick the best fitting theory and the normal account of 9/11 is precisely that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PubliusMN

    This is pure sophism and it ends up in the solipsistic dead-end of ‘I can only know myself.’ All theories are imperfect therefore if perfection is your standard you will have no theories on anything, which means you believe nothing. That is stupid. To live in this world you have to pick the best fitting theory and the normal account of 9/11 is precisely that.
     
    Pure B.S.

    Being able to reject a theory based on it's absurdity, statistical improbability, or nonsensical nature is a key element of all knowledge.
    Calling it "sophism" is, well, sophism.

    Jonathan has never required "perfection" for a theory or explanation. It is actually the official accounts that require perfection, or rather, a perfect, unlikely sequence of events. And that is where the official explanation is simply impossible according to the laws of physics, engineering, or thermodynamics.

    The laws of nature trump the psychological comfort derived from the so-called "normal" theory that you laud.
    There is no reason to preference something called a "normal" theory. The word normal is completely meaninglessness in the way you use it, other than as a synonym for "conforms to mass opinion." But as we all know, appealing to the opinion of the majority is a well-known informal fallacy.
  61. Sam Shama says:
    @L.K
    Diana,
    Written like a true zamerican supremacist bullsh*tter!

    I doubt if you even believe the nonsense you wrote.

    Your country has spent over 90% if its existence at war, all of them wars of choice and empire.
    It is a totally depraved, psycho rogue state.

    You should read General Smedley D. Butler, at the time of his death in 1940, the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. But u won't, too much of a coward to face the truth;

    “I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
     

    “WAR is a racket. It always has been.
    It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one
    international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the
    losses in lives.”
     

    “There are only two reasons why you should ever be asked to give your youngsters. One is defense of our homes. The other is the defense of our Bill of Rights and particularly the right to worship God as we see fit. Every other reason advanced for the murder of young men is a racket, pure and simple.”

     

    Yeah I am sure there are a few of these ‘repentant’ ex-USAF characters. So what pal? You are trying to make a point which does not need to be made. The US did what it had to do in order to become the most powerful country with the most powerful allies in the world. For this it applied whatever strategy that the command needed to apply. Sometimes you have to help the enemy of your enemy to achieve your goals. Crackin’ a few eggs…..

    Got it?

    If you think that the enemy would have done anything different you are a bigger fool than I thought. (maybe your country was the enemy I don’t know, but it sure sounds like you are some kind of anti-US character, which is fine, since we keep winning) Don’t start with the bs labels ‘supremacist’ whatever…….only an idiot thinks the nazis or the soviets, if given victory would not try to be supreme.

    Enough said.

    Read More
    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Max Payne

    If you think that the enemy would have done anything different you are a bigger fool than I thought.
     
    False. Just because you (and your people of course) look for some ultra-evil way to deal with situations doesn't mean the rest of humanity follows the same recipe.

    A criminal will always find ways to skirt the law. Normal human beings try to follow it as best they can. It's not unusual for criminals to mistaken their behavior as normal everyday practice ("everyone does this").

    Criminal mentality. It does extend to nation-states.

    Next.
  62. iffen says:
    @This Is Our Home
    Long and articulate but ultimately the bulk of your essay does not lead to your conclusions. Indeed it denies them.

    For all of your conspiracy theories no-one ever proposes a theory A, as you put it. Nor do you for 9/11, for example. Or anything at all...

    Instead you are content to just say 'the earth can not go round the Sun as what force could possibly make it do that' or the WTC7 could not have fallen from the fires as you don't understand it. Where is your theory A?

    In other words the key points of your essay defeat your HIQI conclusions, which is amusing!

    Oh wait... You make the invocation 'Jewish power.' Well done Revusky your purported theory A to any and everything is just 'Jewish power.'

    Well that is not a theory. It is a magical incantation.

    So propose a theory, actually try and explain something. You will quickly find that anything you say will be imperfect because knowledge is imperfect. The problem for your theories however will be that they will be more flawed and less perfect than the real Theory As like the standard account of 9/11 and so on.

    Basically we need to have a leading theory and you propose no alternatives....

    It is a magical incantation.

    I think the entire article fits this description.

    He is aware of the power inherent in controlling the meaning of words like conspiracy, anti-Semite, race, etc. and how they are used, he just doesn’t know what to do with that realization.

    Read More
  63. utu says:

    Mr. Revusky, great article. You bring new interesting arguments and the way you frame it. I think your questions about the blowback and lack of it in the past and the issue of supporting Stalin are right. The ones who react negatively to them just do not know history well enough. They are the victims of Discovery and History channels.

    As far as bringing up the analogy for heliocentric and geocentric theories I would be more careful. Thomas Kuhn beat that dead horse already and trivialized it. Heliocentric theory at time of Copernicus was just mathematically more elegant but it did not offer extra explanatory nor predictive powers. In fact Copernicus had to use epicycles as well. By looking into the sky one cannot find definitive evidence to decide whether Earth is rotating or everything else rotates around the earth. It was Foucault pendulum in 19 century settled that issue. This is not a trivial matter. That’s why 99.99999% of people currently living when asked to demonstrate (w/o the help of internet) how to prove that heliocentric theory is correct or to prove that geocentric theory is not correct would be totally helpless. So, for 99.99999% of people currently living it is a pure belief. Their belief is correct but they do not know that they do not know how to prove it.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kiza
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Dear utu:
    As far as I know, experiment with Foucault pendulum demonstrates rotation of Earth around its axis, with the period one day, i.e. with angular velocity
    360º/(24*60 minutes)=(1/4)º per minute=15º/hour (at the North or South Pole). You also must multiply this rate by sin function of local latitude
    (e.g. 39º for Washington DC, so that sin (39º)=o.63,)
    and as a result, 15*0.63 = 9.4º of precession angle per hour at DC.
    Motion of the Moon and of Sun and of planets
    with respect to the sky with fixed stars
    can not be (and was not) detected by Foucault pendulum.
    I have at my home a photograph of original Foucault pendulum, which my son brought me as a gift from Paris.
    My best to you, dear utu.
  64. @utu
    Mr. Revusky, great article. You bring new interesting arguments and the way you frame it. I think your questions about the blowback and lack of it in the past and the issue of supporting Stalin are right. The ones who react negatively to them just do not know history well enough. They are the victims of Discovery and History channels.

    As far as bringing up the analogy for heliocentric and geocentric theories I would be more careful. Thomas Kuhn beat that dead horse already and trivialized it. Heliocentric theory at time of Copernicus was just mathematically more elegant but it did not offer extra explanatory nor predictive powers. In fact Copernicus had to use epicycles as well. By looking into the sky one cannot find definitive evidence to decide whether Earth is rotating or everything else rotates around the earth. It was Foucault pendulum in 19 century settled that issue. This is not a trivial matter. That’s why 99.99999% of people currently living when asked to demonstrate (w/o the help of internet) how to prove that heliocentric theory is correct or to prove that geocentric theory is not correct would be totally helpless. So, for 99.99999% of people currently living it is a pure belief. Their belief is correct but they do not know that they do not know how to prove it.

    Dear utu:
    As far as I know, experiment with Foucault pendulum demonstrates rotation of Earth around its axis, with the period one day, i.e. with angular velocity
    360º/(24*60 minutes)=(1/4)º per minute=15º/hour (at the North or South Pole). You also must multiply this rate by sin function of local latitude
    (e.g. 39º for Washington DC, so that sin (39º)=o.63,)
    and as a result, 15*0.63 = 9.4º of precession angle per hour at DC.
    Motion of the Moon and of Sun and of planets
    with respect to the sky with fixed stars
    can not be (and was not) detected by Foucault pendulum.
    I have at my home a photograph of original Foucault pendulum, which my son brought me as a gift from Paris.
    My best to you, dear utu.

    Read More
  65. Max Payne says:
    @Sam Shama
    Yeah I am sure there are a few of these 'repentant' ex-USAF characters. So what pal? You are trying to make a point which does not need to be made. The US did what it had to do in order to become the most powerful country with the most powerful allies in the world. For this it applied whatever strategy that the command needed to apply. Sometimes you have to help the enemy of your enemy to achieve your goals. Crackin' a few eggs.....

    Got it?

    If you think that the enemy would have done anything different you are a bigger fool than I thought. (maybe your country was the enemy I don't know, but it sure sounds like you are some kind of anti-US character, which is fine, since we keep winning) Don't start with the bs labels 'supremacist' whatever.......only an idiot thinks the nazis or the soviets, if given victory would not try to be supreme.

    Enough said.

    If you think that the enemy would have done anything different you are a bigger fool than I thought.

    False. Just because you (and your people of course) look for some ultra-evil way to deal with situations doesn’t mean the rest of humanity follows the same recipe.

    A criminal will always find ways to skirt the law. Normal human beings try to follow it as best they can. It’s not unusual for criminals to mistaken their behavior as normal everyday practice (“everyone does this”).

    Criminal mentality. It does extend to nation-states.

    Next.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    No I am pretty sure I am right.

    Read history,,,,which I think your types call the history written by the victor...whatever...I would not choose to read the history written by losers, you do that, ok?

    Start with Rome, Romulus, Numa, Lars Porcena, Tarquinus,,,,heck start wherever and whenever you want and show me (yeah we read some history in the USAF, surprise! and it was the victors history for sure) how many nations got to survive and get wealthy by thinking that the enemy was good?

    Show me how many? You will get the point and the Max Payne would be in your butt if the nazis or the soviets had won and you would be doing hard labor in siberia or wherever instead of writing blogs.

    , @Kiza
    Dear Max, if this is the same ex-military (Marine, USAF, something) Diana I encountered a while ago then you are totally wasting your time on a totally brainwashed US supremacist character. I still do read her/his comments but only for the nasty pleasure of laughing at the effects of systemic brainwashing. One could not find anything more opposite to her/his mindset then Jonathan's article, what an irony!

    Next.

  66. @Immigrant from former USSR
    Mr. Revusky:
    Since you touch the topic of World War 2, I would like to point your attention to the series of books by former Soviet intelligence officer Vladimir Rezun, mostly known by his pen-name Victor Suvorov. The most recent (and thus updated) book is
    "The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II",
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1591148065/ , $13.19 +$3.99 S&H (used.)
    His thesis is that Stalin was preparing to the war with Germany in an extremely thorough way. His eventual goal was absorption of the whole Europe into his communist state. His tactical plan was
    to use Germany as an "Icebreaker of Revolution":
    to make Germany weaken itself and other Western countries by mutual war, and then this Icebreaker would clear the path for the whole "flotilla" of "liberating" Soviet troops, just as Baltic states Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were "liberated" in 1940. The particular edition of Suvorov's book cited above spends extra time on the role of Stalin's Comintern in the build-up of Nazi power in Germany.

    I do not have anything nontrivial to say about the rest of your article.
    Your I.f.f.U.

    Victor Suvorov.

    Uhh, yeah, I’m aware of Suvorov, but I have to admit that I have never taken the time to read any of those works. I have had it in mind to do so, but it has not quite popped up to the top of my TODO list.

    Now, obviously, if Stalin was in fact planning an attack towards the West, and Hitler simply beat him to the punch, that very much makes one reconsider the conventional interpretation of the whole conflict.

    What is your view on Suvorov’s thesis? (I personally simply don’t know.)

    You know, taking a step or two back and looking at this, one funny thing about all of this discussion is the absolute asymmetry between WW1 and WW2. Like, I’m pretty sure that if you asked almost anybody (in “polite company” or a cocktail party or whatever) what they think WW2 was about, they would almost all have the same basic explanation: Hitler was this madman who wanted to conquer the world and had to be stopped.

    The Roger Rabbit narrative explanation, basically.

    BUT…. if you asked them what WW1 was about, they would just look at you blankly. I remember vaguely how it was presented in school in North America, and it was kind of like… some Archduke dude gets whacked in a place called Sarajevo and then through some chain of events, everybody starts killing each other for the next four years. Is that a very satisfactory explanation??? So I say that if you ask anybody what that war was really about, people would just shrug their shoulders.

    But then WW2, everybody thinks they know what that was about! So, what I did in this article is I just lay out certain facts, and hint that the conventional explanation of key aspects of WW2 is probably not true. And all these people who think they are experts on WW2 come out of the woodwork, getting very strident and insulting with me. (I’m not complaining, I wasn’t born yesterday, so I anticipated it!)

    And, you know, actually, I didn’t so much offer any explanation of anything as just pose a key question: Why did the U.S. and Britain bend over backwards to back Stalin? People are suggesting that my asking that question necessarily implies that I am supposed to know the answer! And you get weird shit. Somebody said that Britain stayed in the war against Germany because she was getting bombed by Germany. It didn’t occur to this person that Britain was getting bombed by Germany precisely because she chose to stay in the war! Reversal of cause and effect! Typical TITT stuff LOL!

    You see, that’s also a funny one because you look at the timeline and you see something very strange, no? I mean, France capitulates on 22 June 1940, and operation Barbarossa begins exactly a year later. So, for an entire year, Britain is at war alone with Germany, rejecting every armistice offer, staying in a conflict which they have absolutely no possibility of winning. EXCEPT if either the USA or USSR (OR BOTH of the above) enters the war. Which is what happened, right? 18 months later and Germany is at war simultaneously with both the USA and USSR so the result is not really in doubt. Total reversal. But how could Winnie have known that?

    So obviously, Churchill (or more accurately, Winnie’s puppet masters) are fairly sure that Britain’s stand alone against Germany is temporary. Otherwise it would be suicidally insane. But how could they know that? Otherwise, they would just sit down with the Germans and work out a peace treaty. Obviously, Churchill must know that Britain will only be alone in this only temporarily, no? But how did he know that? Or maybe he didn’t know with certainty, but was gambling, right?

    Of course, you can go back a bit further and ask some very interesting questions. What was that whole phony war, “la drôle de guerre” about? Why did Britain and particularly France declare war on Germany (supposedly to help the Poles) and then sit on their thumbs? What’s up with that?

    There is a French leftist historian, Annie Lacroix-Riz, who wrote some stuff about that, and I have to admit I haven’t read that either (like Suvorov) but I heard her interviewed once and was intrigued with her interpretation of what happened to France in 1940. I mean, that’s another damned thing. Hitler was a veteran of WW1, mostly on the western front, fighting the French. He had quite a bit of respect for the French and really wanted to avoid another western front war. His ambitions were entirely in the east, I think that’s clear enough.

    But what is strange is that in the first war, Germany threw everything they could at the French at key moments, and maybe the French came very close to collapse at certain points, but the war remained stalemated for four years. And Hitler lived through that. How could Hitler have anticipated that the French were going to just collapse in 6 weeks? There’s that famous photo of him dancing a jig when he got the news. But based on his experience in WW1, there was no way he could have thought that a war with France would be over so fast!

    So the version we get is this thing that the French were these “Cheese eating surrender monkeys” or something, but that’s really just a slur, not a serious explanation of anything. And, after all, they took everything the Germans threw at them for 4 years in the previous war…

    I mean, I’m making a point in the essay that when you look at this history with fresh eyes, and you look at the conventional analysis, you see that there are so many aspects that are really just very inadequately explained. But, I think the biggest single case is the going all-out to support Stalin when Hitler turns his attention east. But look what happens here. You ask the question and people of course jump on you. Not that they have a real answer, mind you, but….

    Is it really the case that Churchill basically bankrupted the British Empire in order to stay in the war to save Stalin? It sounds crazy, but if you look at it, that seems to be what happened, no? It really should require a real explanation!

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    It seems that Britain was doing everything to prevent a possible anti-Soviet alliance between Germany and Poland. Hitler wanted it very much and Poles were less enthusiastic about it but they were considering it. Britain in March 1939 unexpectedly offered guarantees to Poland and Poland accepted them breaking off negotiations with Germany. The guarantees were empty and it was a criminal decision for Polish elite to accept them, however in a bigger picture the British guarantees made the the start of WWII certain.

    "In the history of nations there are moments when one has to bite the bullet and allow for painful concessions. To give up in order to save the nation from destruction, and its citizens from slaughter. This was the situation of Poland in 1939. Piotr Zychowicz claims in his book that the decision to enter the war against Nazi Germany in an illusive alliance with France and Great Britain, was a grave mistake, for which we paid a horrible price. History could have turned in a different way. Instead of biting off more than we could chew, we should have used realpolitik. We should have made concessions to Hitler, and agreed for annexation of the Free City of Danzig into the Third Reich, as well as for the construction of an extraterritorial highway across the Polish Corridor. And then, together with the Germans, we should have attacked the Soviet Union. Forty valiant divisions of the Polish Army, fighting on the Eastern Front would have sealed the fate of Stalin's empire" (Piotr Zychowicz)
    , @This Is Our Home

    Is it really the case that Churchill basically bankrupted the British Empire in order to stay in the war to save Stalin?
     
    Also, in order not to surrender. We are hardly the first country to remain at war against high odds for that reason and we certainly won't be the last. See British resistance to the Romans for one of the millions of examples from history...
    , @Immigrant from former USSR
    Dear Mr. Revusky:
    Thank you for your detailed comment on my humble post.
    Here is my answer to your

    Now, obviously, if Stalin was in fact planning an attack towards the West, and Hitler simply beat him to the punch, that very much makes one reconsider the conventional interpretation of the whole conflict.
    What is your view on Suvorov’s thesis? (I personally simply don’t know.)
     
    Communist government (party, or any other name) of the USSR had this goal, both, explicitly declared and actually in the process of most energetic implementation:
    the annexing of Europe into their big communist State. You can trace it from the activity of German and other European communists: they tried to do that in Germany in 1919, in Hungary in 1919; Slovak Soviet Republic was proclaimed in June of 1919. In 1919 Lenin and Trotsky created for that puropose Comintern, short name of “Communist International”.
    Lenin died in 1924, Trotsky lost power struggle to Stalin around 1928, but the work of Comintern continued and was supported by enormous financial infusions.
    Two five-year plans, 1927-32 and 1933-37 had the goal of industrialization of the USSR, and that goal was achieved, sure with the use of Western technology and with the help of Western engineers. The cost, both financial, and human, of such rapid industrialization, was robbery and Gulag-type slavery of peoples of USSR, famines and physical killing. Especially brutal was de-kulakization of 1930-1932, when about 20 million people “kulaks” (successful peasants) and their families, were moved to Siberia and died there almost to 100%; “Golodomor” (famine of 1934-35, especially strong in Ukraine), etc. Third five-year plan, 1938-41, was essentially militarization of industry. But even during first two five-year periods 21,573 warplanes were produced.
    What is important to understand, Suvorov is not just a spy. By his professional education and his work in Chief Military Directorate (GRU) of Soviet Army he is military analyst. The aggressive intention of Stalin are illustrated, e.g., by abundance of airborne assault troops in pre-war years in Soviet Army --- in numbers larger than in the rest of the world combined. But airborne assault troops are good for offensive, there is no reason to transport troops by parachutes in the defense of your own territory.
    Key event of in the initiation of WW 2 was signing of Moscow pact on 23 August 1939 (known also as Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), according to which Stalin and Hitler divided between them the countries and territories, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact . They also agreed to start military occupation of Poland in September of 1939. Before that, USSR and Germany did not have common border: Poland served as a buffer between them. Therefore sudden Soviet-German war was impossible before September of 1939. By hook and crook, Stalin delayed his action in Poland by couple of weeks, and so we all know now that it was Hitler, who “started” WW 2.
    All 1939-1941 was spent by Stalin’s USSR on further preparations to war. About a year after Moscow pact, Hitler understood that his defeat from Stalin’s offense would be inevitable. Feeble (and as we know now, unsuccessful) attempt to counter this threat was “Barbarossa plan”, December 1940.
    In the summer of 1941 Stalin concentrated large number of offensive (repeat: offensive) troops on that border, and planned to start his war on July 6. Hitler concentrated his offensive troops on the other side of the same border, and started the action on June 22 of 1941. Huge losses of Soviet Army in the Summer of 1941 were exactly due to offensive disposition of Soviet troops. If Stalin somehow would manage to start first, the same disadvantage would fell upon Hitler’s troops.

    To stop my description of Suvorov’s studies, I conclude with this definite advice. Buy Suvorov’s book(s), read it (them). On Amazon the book is about $ 20.00. I can imagine that your impression of Suvorov's work will be different from mine. Still: buy it and read it.

    , @Khan Bodin
    Really, simpleton? That remind me a lot about that famous Bush doctrine: we must attack first, so that we wouldn't be attacked later on.

    Now let us visit reality. Right up to the day of invasion, Stalin was warning the Russians not to put troops on the border because that would provoke the Germans, even though German troops were amassing at the border and German spy-planes flying up to 100 miles into Russian territory was a common occurrence. Russian generals thought to be "provoking" the Germans had to justify their actions or they could be demoted or shot. Tell me then, what kind of air missions was Hans Rudel flying? He wasn't provoking the Soviets by flying up to 100 miles into their air space then, hm?

    But do expand or elaborate on that Bush Doctrine of preemptive strikes so "Murica can be safe." I would like to hear more about that. ehehehe
    , @Khan Bodin
    My apologies. It wasn't you I was replying to, but to Immigrant from the former USSR.
  67. Sam Shama says:
    @Max Payne

    If you think that the enemy would have done anything different you are a bigger fool than I thought.
     
    False. Just because you (and your people of course) look for some ultra-evil way to deal with situations doesn't mean the rest of humanity follows the same recipe.

    A criminal will always find ways to skirt the law. Normal human beings try to follow it as best they can. It's not unusual for criminals to mistaken their behavior as normal everyday practice ("everyone does this").

    Criminal mentality. It does extend to nation-states.

    Next.

    No I am pretty sure I am right.

    Read history,,,,which I think your types call the history written by the victor…whatever…I would not choose to read the history written by losers, you do that, ok?

    Start with Rome, Romulus, Numa, Lars Porcena, Tarquinus,,,,heck start wherever and whenever you want and show me (yeah we read some history in the USAF, surprise! and it was the victors history for sure) how many nations got to survive and get wealthy by thinking that the enemy was good?

    Show me how many? You will get the point and the Max Payne would be in your butt if the nazis or the soviets had won and you would be doing hard labor in siberia or wherever instead of writing blogs.

    Read More
  68. utu says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Victor Suvorov.
     
    Uhh, yeah, I'm aware of Suvorov, but I have to admit that I have never taken the time to read any of those works. I have had it in mind to do so, but it has not quite popped up to the top of my TODO list.

    Now, obviously, if Stalin was in fact planning an attack towards the West, and Hitler simply beat him to the punch, that very much makes one reconsider the conventional interpretation of the whole conflict.

    What is your view on Suvorov's thesis? (I personally simply don't know.)

    You know, taking a step or two back and looking at this, one funny thing about all of this discussion is the absolute asymmetry between WW1 and WW2. Like, I'm pretty sure that if you asked almost anybody (in "polite company" or a cocktail party or whatever) what they think WW2 was about, they would almost all have the same basic explanation: Hitler was this madman who wanted to conquer the world and had to be stopped.

    The Roger Rabbit narrative explanation, basically.

    BUT.... if you asked them what WW1 was about, they would just look at you blankly. I remember vaguely how it was presented in school in North America, and it was kind of like... some Archduke dude gets whacked in a place called Sarajevo and then through some chain of events, everybody starts killing each other for the next four years. Is that a very satisfactory explanation??? So I say that if you ask anybody what that war was really about, people would just shrug their shoulders.

    But then WW2, everybody thinks they know what that was about! So, what I did in this article is I just lay out certain facts, and hint that the conventional explanation of key aspects of WW2 is probably not true. And all these people who think they are experts on WW2 come out of the woodwork, getting very strident and insulting with me. (I'm not complaining, I wasn't born yesterday, so I anticipated it!)

    And, you know, actually, I didn't so much offer any explanation of anything as just pose a key question: Why did the U.S. and Britain bend over backwards to back Stalin? People are suggesting that my asking that question necessarily implies that I am supposed to know the answer! And you get weird shit. Somebody said that Britain stayed in the war against Germany because she was getting bombed by Germany. It didn't occur to this person that Britain was getting bombed by Germany precisely because she chose to stay in the war! Reversal of cause and effect! Typical TITT stuff LOL!

    You see, that's also a funny one because you look at the timeline and you see something very strange, no? I mean, France capitulates on 22 June 1940, and operation Barbarossa begins exactly a year later. So, for an entire year, Britain is at war alone with Germany, rejecting every armistice offer, staying in a conflict which they have absolutely no possibility of winning. EXCEPT if either the USA or USSR (OR BOTH of the above) enters the war. Which is what happened, right? 18 months later and Germany is at war simultaneously with both the USA and USSR so the result is not really in doubt. Total reversal. But how could Winnie have known that?

    So obviously, Churchill (or more accurately, Winnie's puppet masters) are fairly sure that Britain's stand alone against Germany is temporary. Otherwise it would be suicidally insane. But how could they know that? Otherwise, they would just sit down with the Germans and work out a peace treaty. Obviously, Churchill must know that Britain will only be alone in this only temporarily, no? But how did he know that? Or maybe he didn't know with certainty, but was gambling, right?

    Of course, you can go back a bit further and ask some very interesting questions. What was that whole phony war, "la drôle de guerre" about? Why did Britain and particularly France declare war on Germany (supposedly to help the Poles) and then sit on their thumbs? What's up with that?

    There is a French leftist historian, Annie Lacroix-Riz, who wrote some stuff about that, and I have to admit I haven't read that either (like Suvorov) but I heard her interviewed once and was intrigued with her interpretation of what happened to France in 1940. I mean, that's another damned thing. Hitler was a veteran of WW1, mostly on the western front, fighting the French. He had quite a bit of respect for the French and really wanted to avoid another western front war. His ambitions were entirely in the east, I think that's clear enough.

    But what is strange is that in the first war, Germany threw everything they could at the French at key moments, and maybe the French came very close to collapse at certain points, but the war remained stalemated for four years. And Hitler lived through that. How could Hitler have anticipated that the French were going to just collapse in 6 weeks? There's that famous photo of him dancing a jig when he got the news. But based on his experience in WW1, there was no way he could have thought that a war with France would be over so fast!

    So the version we get is this thing that the French were these "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" or something, but that's really just a slur, not a serious explanation of anything. And, after all, they took everything the Germans threw at them for 4 years in the previous war...

    I mean, I'm making a point in the essay that when you look at this history with fresh eyes, and you look at the conventional analysis, you see that there are so many aspects that are really just very inadequately explained. But, I think the biggest single case is the going all-out to support Stalin when Hitler turns his attention east. But look what happens here. You ask the question and people of course jump on you. Not that they have a real answer, mind you, but....

    Is it really the case that Churchill basically bankrupted the British Empire in order to stay in the war to save Stalin? It sounds crazy, but if you look at it, that seems to be what happened, no? It really should require a real explanation!

    It seems that Britain was doing everything to prevent a possible anti-Soviet alliance between Germany and Poland. Hitler wanted it very much and Poles were less enthusiastic about it but they were considering it. Britain in March 1939 unexpectedly offered guarantees to Poland and Poland accepted them breaking off negotiations with Germany. The guarantees were empty and it was a criminal decision for Polish elite to accept them, however in a bigger picture the British guarantees made the the start of WWII certain.

    “In the history of nations there are moments when one has to bite the bullet and allow for painful concessions. To give up in order to save the nation from destruction, and its citizens from slaughter. This was the situation of Poland in 1939. Piotr Zychowicz claims in his book that the decision to enter the war against Nazi Germany in an illusive alliance with France and Great Britain, was a grave mistake, for which we paid a horrible price. History could have turned in a different way. Instead of biting off more than we could chew, we should have used realpolitik. We should have made concessions to Hitler, and agreed for annexation of the Free City of Danzig into the Third Reich, as well as for the construction of an extraterritorial highway across the Polish Corridor. And then, together with the Germans, we should have attacked the Soviet Union. Forty valiant divisions of the Polish Army, fighting on the Eastern Front would have sealed the fate of Stalin’s empire” (Piotr Zychowicz)

    Read More
  69. @Jonathan Revusky

    Victor Suvorov.
     
    Uhh, yeah, I'm aware of Suvorov, but I have to admit that I have never taken the time to read any of those works. I have had it in mind to do so, but it has not quite popped up to the top of my TODO list.

    Now, obviously, if Stalin was in fact planning an attack towards the West, and Hitler simply beat him to the punch, that very much makes one reconsider the conventional interpretation of the whole conflict.

    What is your view on Suvorov's thesis? (I personally simply don't know.)

    You know, taking a step or two back and looking at this, one funny thing about all of this discussion is the absolute asymmetry between WW1 and WW2. Like, I'm pretty sure that if you asked almost anybody (in "polite company" or a cocktail party or whatever) what they think WW2 was about, they would almost all have the same basic explanation: Hitler was this madman who wanted to conquer the world and had to be stopped.

    The Roger Rabbit narrative explanation, basically.

    BUT.... if you asked them what WW1 was about, they would just look at you blankly. I remember vaguely how it was presented in school in North America, and it was kind of like... some Archduke dude gets whacked in a place called Sarajevo and then through some chain of events, everybody starts killing each other for the next four years. Is that a very satisfactory explanation??? So I say that if you ask anybody what that war was really about, people would just shrug their shoulders.

    But then WW2, everybody thinks they know what that was about! So, what I did in this article is I just lay out certain facts, and hint that the conventional explanation of key aspects of WW2 is probably not true. And all these people who think they are experts on WW2 come out of the woodwork, getting very strident and insulting with me. (I'm not complaining, I wasn't born yesterday, so I anticipated it!)

    And, you know, actually, I didn't so much offer any explanation of anything as just pose a key question: Why did the U.S. and Britain bend over backwards to back Stalin? People are suggesting that my asking that question necessarily implies that I am supposed to know the answer! And you get weird shit. Somebody said that Britain stayed in the war against Germany because she was getting bombed by Germany. It didn't occur to this person that Britain was getting bombed by Germany precisely because she chose to stay in the war! Reversal of cause and effect! Typical TITT stuff LOL!

    You see, that's also a funny one because you look at the timeline and you see something very strange, no? I mean, France capitulates on 22 June 1940, and operation Barbarossa begins exactly a year later. So, for an entire year, Britain is at war alone with Germany, rejecting every armistice offer, staying in a conflict which they have absolutely no possibility of winning. EXCEPT if either the USA or USSR (OR BOTH of the above) enters the war. Which is what happened, right? 18 months later and Germany is at war simultaneously with both the USA and USSR so the result is not really in doubt. Total reversal. But how could Winnie have known that?

    So obviously, Churchill (or more accurately, Winnie's puppet masters) are fairly sure that Britain's stand alone against Germany is temporary. Otherwise it would be suicidally insane. But how could they know that? Otherwise, they would just sit down with the Germans and work out a peace treaty. Obviously, Churchill must know that Britain will only be alone in this only temporarily, no? But how did he know that? Or maybe he didn't know with certainty, but was gambling, right?

    Of course, you can go back a bit further and ask some very interesting questions. What was that whole phony war, "la drôle de guerre" about? Why did Britain and particularly France declare war on Germany (supposedly to help the Poles) and then sit on their thumbs? What's up with that?

    There is a French leftist historian, Annie Lacroix-Riz, who wrote some stuff about that, and I have to admit I haven't read that either (like Suvorov) but I heard her interviewed once and was intrigued with her interpretation of what happened to France in 1940. I mean, that's another damned thing. Hitler was a veteran of WW1, mostly on the western front, fighting the French. He had quite a bit of respect for the French and really wanted to avoid another western front war. His ambitions were entirely in the east, I think that's clear enough.

    But what is strange is that in the first war, Germany threw everything they could at the French at key moments, and maybe the French came very close to collapse at certain points, but the war remained stalemated for four years. And Hitler lived through that. How could Hitler have anticipated that the French were going to just collapse in 6 weeks? There's that famous photo of him dancing a jig when he got the news. But based on his experience in WW1, there was no way he could have thought that a war with France would be over so fast!

    So the version we get is this thing that the French were these "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" or something, but that's really just a slur, not a serious explanation of anything. And, after all, they took everything the Germans threw at them for 4 years in the previous war...

    I mean, I'm making a point in the essay that when you look at this history with fresh eyes, and you look at the conventional analysis, you see that there are so many aspects that are really just very inadequately explained. But, I think the biggest single case is the going all-out to support Stalin when Hitler turns his attention east. But look what happens here. You ask the question and people of course jump on you. Not that they have a real answer, mind you, but....

    Is it really the case that Churchill basically bankrupted the British Empire in order to stay in the war to save Stalin? It sounds crazy, but if you look at it, that seems to be what happened, no? It really should require a real explanation!

    Is it really the case that Churchill basically bankrupted the British Empire in order to stay in the war to save Stalin?

    Also, in order not to surrender. We are hardly the first country to remain at war against high odds for that reason and we certainly won’t be the last. See British resistance to the Romans for one of the millions of examples from history…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky


    Is it really the case that Churchill basically bankrupted the British Empire in order to stay in the war to save Stalin?
     
    Also, in order not to surrender.
     
    Well, that's just more typical conventional narrative that is actually extremely dubious. Hitler was not demanding unconditional surrender from Britain at all. One very murky event is the flight of Rudolf Hess (ultimately to Scotland) where he was taken prisoner but did have the opportunity to table some serious proposals for ending the state of war between the two countries.

    What seems to be the case is that Hess was imprisoned for the rest of his life, despite the fact that he was not really guilty of anything much per se, and it was probably to hush up just how generous an offer Hitler had in fact made.

    All of this is very plausible, to me, anyway. When Hess made the flight in May 1941, Germany was on the verge of attacking the USSR so Hitler was very very interested in making a separate deal with the Brits just to free him to smash the USSR. It is plausible to me that it had to be kept secret just how generous an offer Hitler had made. Meanwhile, the British people were told that they were staying in the war and enduring all the bombing and privations and hardship in order to avoid surrender.

    (Okay, just kidding. I know that all can't be true. Churchill and the British government could not possibly have been lying to the people. Never mind...)
  70. utu says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    You've made some valid points but diluted your point by attacking JR personally. By all means take issue with anything in the article and it's likely he'll respond. I'd say he'd likely relish doing it. Much of it made sense to me which is why I grace The Unz Review.

    Conflating some Jewish involvement in a conspiracy as to meaning ALL Jewish involvement in it , I really think is counter productive. Is it possible that the tribe you refer to has also been infiltrated? William Cooper always maintained that was the case. Any thoughts?

    “Is it possible that the tribe you refer to has also been infiltrated? ” – Sure. By the reptilians, right? Just wonder why the body snatchers are partial to Jewish skins? Are they more comfy? Or the reptilians are trying to frame the Jews. Yes, it is a reptilian false flag. Yes, that’s a ticket. The reptilians are Antisemites. After all everybody is. That makes a perfect sense.

    Read More
  71. @utu
    The question about the blowback theory can be illuminate by looking at the origin of terrorism. Where it was invented and by whom? Menachem Begin claimed the credit for the invention:

    “Begin proudly admitted his terrorism in an interview for American television. When the interviewer asked him ‘How does it feel in the light of all that’s going on, to be the father of terrorism in the Middle East?’ Begin proclaimed ‘In the Middle East? In all the world!” – page 61
    http://www.amazon.com/Against-Our-Better-Judgment-History/dp/149591092X


    How about the suicide bombers? How Tamil Tigers became suicide bombers?. Who trained Tamil Tigers? There is a big untold story about Mossad involvement in Sri Lanka. Victor Ostrovsky talked about it.

    The question about the blowback theory can be illuminate by looking at the origin of terrorism. Where it was invented and by whom? Menachem Begin claimed the credit for the invention:

    Well, to be clear about one thing, the various terrorism that Menachem Begin was involved in is not what I would call “blowback”. To me, that specifically means when people from some faroff place show up in London or New York or Paris, say, and kill people because they are angry about whatever government policies. Menachem Begin was leader of the Irgun when they blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. He didn’t go (or send agents) to London, say, to blow up a hotel in London.

    Now, don’t take that to mean that I’m defending Menachem Begin either!

    Similarly, I wouldn’t say that the IRA related violence that takes place in Ireland itself is “blowback”. As regards the Irish example, I did an interview with Kevin Barrett on his Truth Jihad show last week and that topic came up. I admitted my ignorance of the matter but Kevin said that he believed that all of that had a huge false flag component. As I said, I haven’t researched it but I have no reason to doubt what Kevin told me.

    We actually discussed that on the show a bit and I made a point of pointing out how implausible the whole “blowback terrorism” narrative really is. I mean, suppose the Chinese Liberation Army was occupying New York or California. Do you think it would occur to many Americans to try to make their way to some nowheresville place in China and kill some random Chinese people there as a response to that? Like the Chinese equivalent of San Berndardino wherever that might be?!

    I mean, if you sit down and think about it seriously, it’s really a very strange story. It is reminiscent to me of the lone nut gunman narrative. I mean, okay, it’s possible that somebody disturbed could grab a gun and go shoot somebody he doesn’t even know for no obvious reason, but again, it’s not something that is really going to happen very often. What you have in American history, in the sixties, you have 3 major political assassinations, the two Kennedy brothers, and also Martin Luther King, and all are attributed to some lone nut showing up and shooting the person for no very real reason. I mean, even without getting into any detailed analysis of the events in question, what is the objective likelihood that those 3 assassinations are what they are presented as, lone nuts showing up and shooting somebody for no reason?

    But, in any case, there is a huge body of independent research into those assassinations (in particular, JFK obviously) and it all shows that the lone nuts in question were just patsies who were set up to take the blame.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I think I am with you on your blowback argument which in my opinion is a very good argument. Your argument should give some people a pause and make them wonder and possibly consider the false flag nature of the attacks.

    The reason I brought up Menachem Begin is to point to the most likely source of the no-blowback false flag (FF) terrorism. It is perpetrated by those who have the know how. Certainly Israelis have the know how. It may go back very far. It may owe lots to Ochrana and NKVD. Some Antisemitic pogroms to stimulate emigration to Israel after WW II certainly were false flags (eg. 1946 Kielce in Poland). The Lavon Affair is the best proven case of FF terrorism. Not every country for whatever reason mastered the FF know how or had guts to attack itself. So, I am sure, some FF operations are outsourced to the ones who know it the best. Till 2015 we did not know that France developed the capability of FF auto-terrorism. Did they need help or were they helped against their own wishes in Charlie Hebdo and later in Paris?

    BTW, there is a discussion next door at Steve Sailer on there recent interview with Jesse Hughes of Death Metal...Paris attack...
    , @alexander
    FYI, JR,


    I took the opportunity to study the history of terrorism.

    The first historically recognized acts of "terrorism" were done by the Sicarii, (extremist Jewish zealots) around 50- 70 BCE.

    Their modus operandi was a kind of ancient "false flagging".

    They would choose large gatherings ....hide daggers in their shrouds,.... then attack and kill their pre-determined victims.

    They would disguise their culpability , by wailing (most loudly)at the tragedy of the terror attack, even to the point of demanding blood vengeance , thereby concealing themselves from scrutiny, as being the terrorists.


    Thank goodness that doesn't happen today.

    Right, JR.

  72. @Carlton Meyer
    Excellent article.

    I think the high-IQ idiots thrive by learning and adhering to societal rules. It's something they learned growing up and serves them well. They are simply unable to accept alternative thought.

    Here are a few "deep" thoughts I read in recent months.

    1. I thought the claim that the USA spent $5 billion to take over Ukraine was a wild estimate. I recently found this 2013 video on youtube where the semi-covert coup manager from Hillary's state Dept, Victoria Nuland spouts BS and states that $5 billion was spent!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2fYcHLouXY

    2. We all know the evil Nazi's invaded Czechoslovakia. But Poland grabbed a share first. After an ultimatum from Warsaw on September 27, 1938, Czechoslovakia ceded to Poland the district of Tesin (Teschen) — an area of some 625 square miles with a population of 230,000 people.” And when Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland a year later, why didn't the British and French declare war on the Soviet Union too?

    3. You have probably read and seen a lot about the JFK assassination. Was Oswald the only shooter? The controversy focuses on disputes about rifle accuracy and other oddities. It is rare for anyone to mention hard proof, like James Tague, who was hit by concrete fragments from an unexplained stray bullet that hit a curb. There is even a photo of the damaged curb and that of a police officer handing the bullet to an FBI agent, then it disappeared.

    Warren Commission lab tests indicated a different type of bullet residue on the curb than used by Oswald, and no one explained the odd next-day curb patch over. In rare cases when this "fourth bullet" issue is brought up, no one offers a reasonable explanation, yet the lone shooter story has become official "history."

    Hi Carlton. Thanks for the encouragement. I was looking at your g2mil website and there is some interesting material there as well.

    …USA spent $5 billion to take over Ukraine…

    Uh, yeah, as for the 5 billion dollars spent by the Nuland bitch to mess up Ukraine…. I dunno… I guess one should take it at face value. Why would she say that if it’s not true? That said, it’s a mind-boggling sum of money, isn’t it? I mean, even 5 billion dollars spent freely in the U.S. to buy off politicians etcetera and pay rent-a-mobs and so forth, that could go pretty far, but if you think about just how much money that is in a country like Ukraine where a typical worker makes a few hundred dollars a month if he’s lucky… I don’t know how it was disbursed. I mean, I guess some of it is through some network of foundations that promote democracy (sic) and all that, but some of it must just be straight suitcases of cash to pay these rent-a-mobs and so forth. But, I mean, the bitch is there, says that they spent 5 billion and there is no outcry asking for an accounting. But jaysus, it’s a huge sum of money. I mean if it was 5 million or even 50 million, that’s petty cash at the U.S. federal budget level, but 5 billion!? Okay, over a space of some years, but still…

    But the other thing is that you’ll get the western MSM talking like there was some spontaneous popular revolution in Ukraine and just pretending that the U.S. had no role in actively fomenting any of it. And then this bitch is there right on youtube saying that they spent 5 billion!!!

    And when Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland a year later, why didn’t the British and French declare war on the Soviet Union too?

    Well, I guess the answer is that the people who manufactured the crisis over the Polish Corridor were out to demonize Germany and get a war going with Germany, not with the USSR. You’re right, if they were really concerned about protecting Poland’s sovereignty, they should have been just as angry at Stalin as at Hitler, no? The same people basically tried to create a crisis over the Sudetenland in 1938, an area that was 90%+ ethnic German, where the overwheling majority of people there wanted to join Germany. It’s very reminiscent actually of what happened with Crimea recently. But that whole thing is completely misrepresented, I think, in the conventional history that we are taught.

    So, yeah, you have this basic unanswered question there as well when they tell you that Britain and France declared war on Germany because Germany invaded Poland. And then they don’t mention the Russians coming in from the other side. So, yeah, that’s like unanswered question #1138 or something…

    I mean, in my article, I posed a big honking over-arching sort of question, which is why the U.S. was so determined to back Stalin against Hitler. They were fans of Soviet communism suddenly? WTF? I just ask the question. Now, I do say that the answer to the question probably has something to do with the power of Jewish lobbies. But still, I’m basically just posing the question.

    …JFK assassination. Was Oswald the only shooter?

    Uh, I’m pretty sure that Oswald was just a pure patsy, never shot anybody in his blessed life. It’s true that Oswald was in the Marines so he did some shooting then as part of the basic training, but he was not a sharpshooter or anything like that. I think there’s testimony from people who knew him back when and he was an extremely mediocre shot. No, there were professional assassins involved, hard-core sharpshooter types, and Oswald was just the designated fall guy.

    Read More
  73. @Jonathan Revusky

    Victor Suvorov.
     
    Uhh, yeah, I'm aware of Suvorov, but I have to admit that I have never taken the time to read any of those works. I have had it in mind to do so, but it has not quite popped up to the top of my TODO list.

    Now, obviously, if Stalin was in fact planning an attack towards the West, and Hitler simply beat him to the punch, that very much makes one reconsider the conventional interpretation of the whole conflict.

    What is your view on Suvorov's thesis? (I personally simply don't know.)

    You know, taking a step or two back and looking at this, one funny thing about all of this discussion is the absolute asymmetry between WW1 and WW2. Like, I'm pretty sure that if you asked almost anybody (in "polite company" or a cocktail party or whatever) what they think WW2 was about, they would almost all have the same basic explanation: Hitler was this madman who wanted to conquer the world and had to be stopped.

    The Roger Rabbit narrative explanation, basically.

    BUT.... if you asked them what WW1 was about, they would just look at you blankly. I remember vaguely how it was presented in school in North America, and it was kind of like... some Archduke dude gets whacked in a place called Sarajevo and then through some chain of events, everybody starts killing each other for the next four years. Is that a very satisfactory explanation??? So I say that if you ask anybody what that war was really about, people would just shrug their shoulders.

    But then WW2, everybody thinks they know what that was about! So, what I did in this article is I just lay out certain facts, and hint that the conventional explanation of key aspects of WW2 is probably not true. And all these people who think they are experts on WW2 come out of the woodwork, getting very strident and insulting with me. (I'm not complaining, I wasn't born yesterday, so I anticipated it!)

    And, you know, actually, I didn't so much offer any explanation of anything as just pose a key question: Why did the U.S. and Britain bend over backwards to back Stalin? People are suggesting that my asking that question necessarily implies that I am supposed to know the answer! And you get weird shit. Somebody said that Britain stayed in the war against Germany because she was getting bombed by Germany. It didn't occur to this person that Britain was getting bombed by Germany precisely because she chose to stay in the war! Reversal of cause and effect! Typical TITT stuff LOL!

    You see, that's also a funny one because you look at the timeline and you see something very strange, no? I mean, France capitulates on 22 June 1940, and operation Barbarossa begins exactly a year later. So, for an entire year, Britain is at war alone with Germany, rejecting every armistice offer, staying in a conflict which they have absolutely no possibility of winning. EXCEPT if either the USA or USSR (OR BOTH of the above) enters the war. Which is what happened, right? 18 months later and Germany is at war simultaneously with both the USA and USSR so the result is not really in doubt. Total reversal. But how could Winnie have known that?

    So obviously, Churchill (or more accurately, Winnie's puppet masters) are fairly sure that Britain's stand alone against Germany is temporary. Otherwise it would be suicidally insane. But how could they know that? Otherwise, they would just sit down with the Germans and work out a peace treaty. Obviously, Churchill must know that Britain will only be alone in this only temporarily, no? But how did he know that? Or maybe he didn't know with certainty, but was gambling, right?

    Of course, you can go back a bit further and ask some very interesting questions. What was that whole phony war, "la drôle de guerre" about? Why did Britain and particularly France declare war on Germany (supposedly to help the Poles) and then sit on their thumbs? What's up with that?

    There is a French leftist historian, Annie Lacroix-Riz, who wrote some stuff about that, and I have to admit I haven't read that either (like Suvorov) but I heard her interviewed once and was intrigued with her interpretation of what happened to France in 1940. I mean, that's another damned thing. Hitler was a veteran of WW1, mostly on the western front, fighting the French. He had quite a bit of respect for the French and really wanted to avoid another western front war. His ambitions were entirely in the east, I think that's clear enough.

    But what is strange is that in the first war, Germany threw everything they could at the French at key moments, and maybe the French came very close to collapse at certain points, but the war remained stalemated for four years. And Hitler lived through that. How could Hitler have anticipated that the French were going to just collapse in 6 weeks? There's that famous photo of him dancing a jig when he got the news. But based on his experience in WW1, there was no way he could have thought that a war with France would be over so fast!

    So the version we get is this thing that the French were these "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" or something, but that's really just a slur, not a serious explanation of anything. And, after all, they took everything the Germans threw at them for 4 years in the previous war...

    I mean, I'm making a point in the essay that when you look at this history with fresh eyes, and you look at the conventional analysis, you see that there are so many aspects that are really just very inadequately explained. But, I think the biggest single case is the going all-out to support Stalin when Hitler turns his attention east. But look what happens here. You ask the question and people of course jump on you. Not that they have a real answer, mind you, but....

    Is it really the case that Churchill basically bankrupted the British Empire in order to stay in the war to save Stalin? It sounds crazy, but if you look at it, that seems to be what happened, no? It really should require a real explanation!

    Dear Mr. Revusky:
    Thank you for your detailed comment on my humble post.
    Here is my answer to your

    Now, obviously, if Stalin was in fact planning an attack towards the West, and Hitler simply beat him to the punch, that very much makes one reconsider the conventional interpretation of the whole conflict.
    What is your view on Suvorov’s thesis? (I personally simply don’t know.)

    Communist government (party, or any other name) of the USSR had this goal, both, explicitly declared and actually in the process of most energetic implementation:
    the annexing of Europe into their big communist State. You can trace it from the activity of German and other European communists: they tried to do that in Germany in 1919, in Hungary in 1919; Slovak Soviet Republic was proclaimed in June of 1919. In 1919 Lenin and Trotsky created for that puropose Comintern, short name of “Communist International”.
    Lenin died in 1924, Trotsky lost power struggle to Stalin around 1928, but the work of Comintern continued and was supported by enormous financial infusions.
    Two five-year plans, 1927-32 and 1933-37 had the goal of industrialization of the USSR, and that goal was achieved, sure with the use of Western technology and with the help of Western engineers. The cost, both financial, and human, of such rapid industrialization, was robbery and Gulag-type slavery of peoples of USSR, famines and physical killing. Especially brutal was de-kulakization of 1930-1932, when about 20 million people “kulaks” (successful peasants) and their families, were moved to Siberia and died there almost to 100%; “Golodomor” (famine of 1934-35, especially strong in Ukraine), etc. Third five-year plan, 1938-41, was essentially militarization of industry. But even during first two five-year periods 21,573 warplanes were produced.
    What is important to understand, Suvorov is not just a spy. By his professional education and his work in Chief Military Directorate (GRU) of Soviet Army he is military analyst. The aggressive intention of Stalin are illustrated, e.g., by abundance of airborne assault troops in pre-war years in Soviet Army — in numbers larger than in the rest of the world combined. But airborne assault troops are good for offensive, there is no reason to transport troops by parachutes in the defense of your own territory.
    Key event of in the initiation of WW 2 was signing of Moscow pact on 23 August 1939 (known also as Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), according to which Stalin and Hitler divided between them the countries and territories, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact . They also agreed to start military occupation of Poland in September of 1939. Before that, USSR and Germany did not have common border: Poland served as a buffer between them. Therefore sudden Soviet-German war was impossible before September of 1939. By hook and crook, Stalin delayed his action in Poland by couple of weeks, and so we all know now that it was Hitler, who “started” WW 2.
    All 1939-1941 was spent by Stalin’s USSR on further preparations to war. About a year after Moscow pact, Hitler understood that his defeat from Stalin’s offense would be inevitable. Feeble (and as we know now, unsuccessful) attempt to counter this threat was “Barbarossa plan”, December 1940.
    In the summer of 1941 Stalin concentrated large number of offensive (repeat: offensive) troops on that border, and planned to start his war on July 6. Hitler concentrated his offensive troops on the other side of the same border, and started the action on June 22 of 1941. Huge losses of Soviet Army in the Summer of 1941 were exactly due to offensive disposition of Soviet troops. If Stalin somehow would manage to start first, the same disadvantage would fell upon Hitler’s troops.

    To stop my description of Suvorov’s studies, I conclude with this definite advice. Buy Suvorov’s book(s), read it (them). On Amazon the book is about $ 20.00. I can imagine that your impression of Suvorov’s work will be different from mine. Still: buy it and read it.

    Read More
  74. utu says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    The question about the blowback theory can be illuminate by looking at the origin of terrorism. Where it was invented and by whom? Menachem Begin claimed the credit for the invention:
     
    Well, to be clear about one thing, the various terrorism that Menachem Begin was involved in is not what I would call "blowback". To me, that specifically means when people from some faroff place show up in London or New York or Paris, say, and kill people because they are angry about whatever government policies. Menachem Begin was leader of the Irgun when they blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. He didn't go (or send agents) to London, say, to blow up a hotel in London.

    Now, don't take that to mean that I'm defending Menachem Begin either!

    Similarly, I wouldn't say that the IRA related violence that takes place in Ireland itself is "blowback". As regards the Irish example, I did an interview with Kevin Barrett on his Truth Jihad show last week and that topic came up. I admitted my ignorance of the matter but Kevin said that he believed that all of that had a huge false flag component. As I said, I haven't researched it but I have no reason to doubt what Kevin told me.

    We actually discussed that on the show a bit and I made a point of pointing out how implausible the whole "blowback terrorism" narrative really is. I mean, suppose the Chinese Liberation Army was occupying New York or California. Do you think it would occur to many Americans to try to make their way to some nowheresville place in China and kill some random Chinese people there as a response to that? Like the Chinese equivalent of San Berndardino wherever that might be?!

    I mean, if you sit down and think about it seriously, it's really a very strange story. It is reminiscent to me of the lone nut gunman narrative. I mean, okay, it's possible that somebody disturbed could grab a gun and go shoot somebody he doesn't even know for no obvious reason, but again, it's not something that is really going to happen very often. What you have in American history, in the sixties, you have 3 major political assassinations, the two Kennedy brothers, and also Martin Luther King, and all are attributed to some lone nut showing up and shooting the person for no very real reason. I mean, even without getting into any detailed analysis of the events in question, what is the objective likelihood that those 3 assassinations are what they are presented as, lone nuts showing up and shooting somebody for no reason?

    But, in any case, there is a huge body of independent research into those assassinations (in particular, JFK obviously) and it all shows that the lone nuts in question were just patsies who were set up to take the blame.

    I think I am with you on your blowback argument which in my opinion is a very good argument. Your argument should give some people a pause and make them wonder and possibly consider the false flag nature of the attacks.

    The reason I brought up Menachem Begin is to point to the most likely source of the no-blowback false flag (FF) terrorism. It is perpetrated by those who have the know how. Certainly Israelis have the know how. It may go back very far. It may owe lots to Ochrana and NKVD. Some Antisemitic pogroms to stimulate emigration to Israel after WW II certainly were false flags (eg. 1946 Kielce in Poland). The Lavon Affair is the best proven case of FF terrorism. Not every country for whatever reason mastered the FF know how or had guts to attack itself. So, I am sure, some FF operations are outsourced to the ones who know it the best. Till 2015 we did not know that France developed the capability of FF auto-terrorism. Did they need help or were they helped against their own wishes in Charlie Hebdo and later in Paris?

    BTW, there is a discussion next door at Steve Sailer on there recent interview with Jesse Hughes of Death Metal…Paris attack…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    BTW, there is a discussion next door at Steve Sailer on there recent interview with Jesse Hughes of Death Metal…Paris attack…
     
    Sailer has such a following and I can't understand why. Let me guess, he eats up this bullshit with a spoon, no? Such totally fake bullshit.

    Anyway, regarding that Paris thing, in the Bataclan theater in Paris, a while back I remembered something I had seen a while back, vaguely remembered it, and googled it and there it was. A skit from the short-lived Richard Pryor Show in 1977(!). 39 years ago.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqteDk15Ud8

    This is Richard Pryor satirizing the Heavy Metal music genre. What I find bizarre is that the band that was playing at the theatre where most of the people were killed in Paris (allegedly killed anyway) was a group called the Eagles of Death Metal. They were performing a song called "Kiss the Devil" when gunmen came in and started shooting (allegedly). (I keep saying allegedly because it appears that the whole thing is a staged hoax, like Sandy Hook or whatever.)

    But seriously, watch that Richard Pryor skit. What I find very odd about it is that this "Black Death" heavy metal group that performs in the skit, which is just a joke, to my ears, sounds about as good musically as the actual Eagles of Death Metal group that was performing in Paris! I looked up some of their music and tried to listen to it and.... the Richard Pryor parody seems like the music is about as good.

    To be clear, I'm not saying that the Richard Pryor skit from 38 years ago has any real connection with the recent events in Paris, just that the similarities are kind of bizarre. I really get the feeling that the Paris thing was a staged hoax, so the whole thing has aspects of macabre humour, like the song "Kiss the Devil" being played and all this. (Could they have been inspired by this though???)

    In the skit, Richard Pryor is having a wicked bit of fun making fun of that "Death Metal" genre, I guess. I'm not sure it's actually that funny though, sort of just weird. Pryor was certainly a comedic genius, but sometimes, you know, he's sort of experimenting/playing around, and the results are mixed. Also, of course, he had a pretty severe cocaine habit at the time, apparently.... probably he and his collaborators were stoned out of their minds, so the skit would have seemed hilarious to them while doing it...

    But anyway, I vaguely remembered this Richard Pryor skit and googled it and watched it again, and it was like... ooohhh shit....
  75. @This Is Our Home

    Is it really the case that Churchill basically bankrupted the British Empire in order to stay in the war to save Stalin?
     
    Also, in order not to surrender. We are hardly the first country to remain at war against high odds for that reason and we certainly won't be the last. See British resistance to the Romans for one of the millions of examples from history...

    Is it really the case that Churchill basically bankrupted the British Empire in order to stay in the war to save Stalin?

    Also, in order not to surrender.

    Well, that’s just more typical conventional narrative that is actually extremely dubious. Hitler was not demanding unconditional surrender from Britain at all. One very murky event is the flight of Rudolf Hess (ultimately to Scotland) where he was taken prisoner but did have the opportunity to table some serious proposals for ending the state of war between the two countries.

    What seems to be the case is that Hess was imprisoned for the rest of his life, despite the fact that he was not really guilty of anything much per se, and it was probably to hush up just how generous an offer Hitler had in fact made.

    All of this is very plausible, to me, anyway. When Hess made the flight in May 1941, Germany was on the verge of attacking the USSR so Hitler was very very interested in making a separate deal with the Brits just to free him to smash the USSR. It is plausible to me that it had to be kept secret just how generous an offer Hitler had made. Meanwhile, the British people were told that they were staying in the war and enduring all the bombing and privations and hardship in order to avoid surrender.

    (Okay, just kidding. I know that all can’t be true. Churchill and the British government could not possibly have been lying to the people. Never mind…)

    Read More
    • Replies: @This Is Our Home

    Well, that’s just more typical conventional narrative that is actually extremely dubious. Hitler was not demanding unconditional surrender from Britain at all.
     
    I only said surrender. Nothing about it being unconditional. Please also answer my previous point, ref

    This is pure sophism and it ends up in the solipsistic dead-end of ‘I can only know myself.’ All theories are imperfect therefore if perfection is your standard you will have no theories on anything, which means you believe nothing. That is stupid. To live in this world you have to pick the best fitting theory and the normal account of 9/11 is precisely that.
     
    I know it uses less than common words in places but all can be found on the UK high school philosophy exam. It really isn't very complicated, nor controversial and it is precisely why your article goes nowhere.

    This is a shame as you do grasp that there are narratives changing how we perceive things and that there is a lot of power in words and so on.

    iffen got it right when he said 'He is aware of the power inherent in controlling the meaning of words like conspiracy, anti-Semite, race, etc. and how they are used, he just doesn’t know what to do with that realization.'

    The problem then though is that acting upon iffen's point is really hard. Everything becomes very complicated and hard to conceptualise. It requires real sophistication. On the other hand, you seem wedded to a partially juvenile Hitler was right and the Jews are bad type of thinking. You remind me of someone I know. How the quite smart mind is driven mad by the narratives that are pushed!

    , @Kiza
    When I read this point of yours Jonathan, that Churchill and the British were fighting for USSR, I did find it a bit of a stretch, mainly because of the poor benefits of such fighting, not because I would accept any historic dogma. Knowing the British, I would lean towards the belief that they were driven by self-interest and a pompous belief in their eternal empire (despite empty treasury), against the upstart Germans. But your explanation of the Hess story is highly likely - he did appear to have given a chance to the British to bail out of the WW2 and the leadership declined. I wish I knew exactly why. The life-long imprisonment of Hess is another perfect conspiracy theory.
  76. alexander says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    The question about the blowback theory can be illuminate by looking at the origin of terrorism. Where it was invented and by whom? Menachem Begin claimed the credit for the invention:
     
    Well, to be clear about one thing, the various terrorism that Menachem Begin was involved in is not what I would call "blowback". To me, that specifically means when people from some faroff place show up in London or New York or Paris, say, and kill people because they are angry about whatever government policies. Menachem Begin was leader of the Irgun when they blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. He didn't go (or send agents) to London, say, to blow up a hotel in London.

    Now, don't take that to mean that I'm defending Menachem Begin either!

    Similarly, I wouldn't say that the IRA related violence that takes place in Ireland itself is "blowback". As regards the Irish example, I did an interview with Kevin Barrett on his Truth Jihad show last week and that topic came up. I admitted my ignorance of the matter but Kevin said that he believed that all of that had a huge false flag component. As I said, I haven't researched it but I have no reason to doubt what Kevin told me.

    We actually discussed that on the show a bit and I made a point of pointing out how implausible the whole "blowback terrorism" narrative really is. I mean, suppose the Chinese Liberation Army was occupying New York or California. Do you think it would occur to many Americans to try to make their way to some nowheresville place in China and kill some random Chinese people there as a response to that? Like the Chinese equivalent of San Berndardino wherever that might be?!

    I mean, if you sit down and think about it seriously, it's really a very strange story. It is reminiscent to me of the lone nut gunman narrative. I mean, okay, it's possible that somebody disturbed could grab a gun and go shoot somebody he doesn't even know for no obvious reason, but again, it's not something that is really going to happen very often. What you have in American history, in the sixties, you have 3 major political assassinations, the two Kennedy brothers, and also Martin Luther King, and all are attributed to some lone nut showing up and shooting the person for no very real reason. I mean, even without getting into any detailed analysis of the events in question, what is the objective likelihood that those 3 assassinations are what they are presented as, lone nuts showing up and shooting somebody for no reason?

    But, in any case, there is a huge body of independent research into those assassinations (in particular, JFK obviously) and it all shows that the lone nuts in question were just patsies who were set up to take the blame.

    FYI, JR,

    I took the opportunity to study the history of terrorism.

    The first historically recognized acts of “terrorism” were done by the Sicarii, (extremist Jewish zealots) around 50- 70 BCE.

    Their modus operandi was a kind of ancient “false flagging”.

    They would choose large gatherings ….hide daggers in their shrouds,…. then attack and kill their pre-determined victims.

    They would disguise their culpability , by wailing (most loudly)at the tragedy of the terror attack, even to the point of demanding blood vengeance , thereby concealing themselves from scrutiny, as being the terrorists.

    Thank goodness that doesn’t happen today.

    Right, JR.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    There is even a debate among historians, whether the full title of Judas, "Judas Iscariot" was not a false derivation.

    That a misattribution of his home town, "Iscariot", with his (real ?) occupation may have occurred.

    as a member of " The Sicarii".

    "Judas Iscariot"......"Judas Sicarii".


    Interesting, when you think about it.. No ?

    The idea that a member of the very first terrorist group in history, "the Sicarii,"used deception to infiltrate the inner circle of Jesus of Nazareth, to make way for his capture and subsequent crucifixion....may not be true.

    I wasn't there 2000 years ago, so I cannot say that this is what happened .

    But I cannot say it wasn't what happened ,either.

    Can you ?
  77. There is no helping exceptionally corrupt “nation” known as Murica. Your time is up! 3rd world is waiting for you. Don’t drag your feet. >)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    I look forward to finding out what the exceptionally corrupt 3rd world has in store for us. I bet it will be interesting.
  78. Art says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Mr. Revusky is a big boy – he is free to explain himself. Perhaps he has a perfect explanation – I am waiting.
     
    Excuse me, Art. What is it that I am supposed to "explain"? Obviously, I have no explanation of why you lack elementary reading comprehension.

    I said that we should avoid using the word "conspiracy" because the term had been overloaded. You apparently took that to mean that I was saying that there actually were no conspiracies, that nobody ever conspired! And then you constructed a rant based on a misinterpretation (180 degrees away) of what I was actually saying!

    Not only did you completely misunderstand my comments about "conspiracy", you seem to have misunderstood my point about "blowback". The incidents that the left-liberal intelligentsia refers to as "blowback", I am fairly certain that they are false flags. That is the theory A (analogous to the earth revolving around the sun) that I was referring to. I thought that was obvious, but maybe it wasn't...

    My suggestion to you is that, rather than demand explanations from me, based on your own incomprehension of what I was saying, go back and read the essay again and satisfy yourself that you actually understood it. Then feel free to rejoin the discussion.

    I said that we should avoid using the word “conspiracy” because the term had been overloaded. You apparently took that to mean that I was saying that there actually were no conspiracies, that nobody ever conspired!

    From the article: In popular usage, the person who believes in conspiracies, the conspiracy theorist, is taken to be self-evidently crazy and anything he says can be dismissed out of hand.

    You are correct – I got it wrong – you said it right – I miss read the thrust of your article – I apologize for my negative words —– Art

    From the article: Once you recognize that a word has become effectively unusable, you just have to look for an alternative term to use. In the case of “conspiracy”, I would propose that we talk more in terms of “deep events” and “deep politics”.

    May I disagree, adding the word “theory” to the word “conspiracy” changes the whole complexion and meaning of the thought. “Theory” automatically puts the “conspiracy” in question.

    Faint heart never won fair maiden. Conspiracy is a strong word with large implications – it should stand along. Using something else is weak. A conspiracy is a conspiracy is a conspiracy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    You are correct – I got it wrong – you said it right – I miss read the thrust of your article – I apologize for my negative words —– Art
     
    Thanks, Art. Of course, I accept your apology. Today is the proverbial cold day in hell. Somebody on the Internet admitted he was wrong.

    I was wrong once too. Some time back in the eighties. But, like you, I also promptly apologized several years later.

    May I disagree, adding the word “theory” to the word “conspiracy” changes the whole complexion and meaning of the thought. “Theory” automatically puts the “conspiracy” in question.
     
    Uhh, yeah, I agree that the term "conspiracy" becomes more loaded, seriously weaponized, when you put "theory" or "theorist" after it.

    Regardless, what I'm really getting at there is the whole way they frame things with language. So my sense of things is that we have to be constantly thinking about a "counter-framing", to be on our toes to figure out a way to turn the tables on the fuckers. To just passively accept the way they frame things is not a winning strategy.
  79. @Jonathan Revusky

    Victor Suvorov.
     
    Uhh, yeah, I'm aware of Suvorov, but I have to admit that I have never taken the time to read any of those works. I have had it in mind to do so, but it has not quite popped up to the top of my TODO list.

    Now, obviously, if Stalin was in fact planning an attack towards the West, and Hitler simply beat him to the punch, that very much makes one reconsider the conventional interpretation of the whole conflict.

    What is your view on Suvorov's thesis? (I personally simply don't know.)

    You know, taking a step or two back and looking at this, one funny thing about all of this discussion is the absolute asymmetry between WW1 and WW2. Like, I'm pretty sure that if you asked almost anybody (in "polite company" or a cocktail party or whatever) what they think WW2 was about, they would almost all have the same basic explanation: Hitler was this madman who wanted to conquer the world and had to be stopped.

    The Roger Rabbit narrative explanation, basically.

    BUT.... if you asked them what WW1 was about, they would just look at you blankly. I remember vaguely how it was presented in school in North America, and it was kind of like... some Archduke dude gets whacked in a place called Sarajevo and then through some chain of events, everybody starts killing each other for the next four years. Is that a very satisfactory explanation??? So I say that if you ask anybody what that war was really about, people would just shrug their shoulders.

    But then WW2, everybody thinks they know what that was about! So, what I did in this article is I just lay out certain facts, and hint that the conventional explanation of key aspects of WW2 is probably not true. And all these people who think they are experts on WW2 come out of the woodwork, getting very strident and insulting with me. (I'm not complaining, I wasn't born yesterday, so I anticipated it!)

    And, you know, actually, I didn't so much offer any explanation of anything as just pose a key question: Why did the U.S. and Britain bend over backwards to back Stalin? People are suggesting that my asking that question necessarily implies that I am supposed to know the answer! And you get weird shit. Somebody said that Britain stayed in the war against Germany because she was getting bombed by Germany. It didn't occur to this person that Britain was getting bombed by Germany precisely because she chose to stay in the war! Reversal of cause and effect! Typical TITT stuff LOL!

    You see, that's also a funny one because you look at the timeline and you see something very strange, no? I mean, France capitulates on 22 June 1940, and operation Barbarossa begins exactly a year later. So, for an entire year, Britain is at war alone with Germany, rejecting every armistice offer, staying in a conflict which they have absolutely no possibility of winning. EXCEPT if either the USA or USSR (OR BOTH of the above) enters the war. Which is what happened, right? 18 months later and Germany is at war simultaneously with both the USA and USSR so the result is not really in doubt. Total reversal. But how could Winnie have known that?

    So obviously, Churchill (or more accurately, Winnie's puppet masters) are fairly sure that Britain's stand alone against Germany is temporary. Otherwise it would be suicidally insane. But how could they know that? Otherwise, they would just sit down with the Germans and work out a peace treaty. Obviously, Churchill must know that Britain will only be alone in this only temporarily, no? But how did he know that? Or maybe he didn't know with certainty, but was gambling, right?

    Of course, you can go back a bit further and ask some very interesting questions. What was that whole phony war, "la drôle de guerre" about? Why did Britain and particularly France declare war on Germany (supposedly to help the Poles) and then sit on their thumbs? What's up with that?

    There is a French leftist historian, Annie Lacroix-Riz, who wrote some stuff about that, and I have to admit I haven't read that either (like Suvorov) but I heard her interviewed once and was intrigued with her interpretation of what happened to France in 1940. I mean, that's another damned thing. Hitler was a veteran of WW1, mostly on the western front, fighting the French. He had quite a bit of respect for the French and really wanted to avoid another western front war. His ambitions were entirely in the east, I think that's clear enough.

    But what is strange is that in the first war, Germany threw everything they could at the French at key moments, and maybe the French came very close to collapse at certain points, but the war remained stalemated for four years. And Hitler lived through that. How could Hitler have anticipated that the French were going to just collapse in 6 weeks? There's that famous photo of him dancing a jig when he got the news. But based on his experience in WW1, there was no way he could have thought that a war with France would be over so fast!

    So the version we get is this thing that the French were these "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" or something, but that's really just a slur, not a serious explanation of anything. And, after all, they took everything the Germans threw at them for 4 years in the previous war...

    I mean, I'm making a point in the essay that when you look at this history with fresh eyes, and you look at the conventional analysis, you see that there are so many aspects that are really just very inadequately explained. But, I think the biggest single case is the going all-out to support Stalin when Hitler turns his attention east. But look what happens here. You ask the question and people of course jump on you. Not that they have a real answer, mind you, but....

    Is it really the case that Churchill basically bankrupted the British Empire in order to stay in the war to save Stalin? It sounds crazy, but if you look at it, that seems to be what happened, no? It really should require a real explanation!

    Really, simpleton? That remind me a lot about that famous Bush doctrine: we must attack first, so that we wouldn’t be attacked later on.

    Now let us visit reality. Right up to the day of invasion, Stalin was warning the Russians not to put troops on the border because that would provoke the Germans, even though German troops were amassing at the border and German spy-planes flying up to 100 miles into Russian territory was a common occurrence. Russian generals thought to be “provoking” the Germans had to justify their actions or they could be demoted or shot. Tell me then, what kind of air missions was Hans Rudel flying? He wasn’t provoking the Soviets by flying up to 100 miles into their air space then, hm?

    But do expand or elaborate on that Bush Doctrine of preemptive strikes so “Murica can be safe.” I would like to hear more about that. ehehehe

    Read More
  80. alexander says:
    @alexander
    FYI, JR,


    I took the opportunity to study the history of terrorism.

    The first historically recognized acts of "terrorism" were done by the Sicarii, (extremist Jewish zealots) around 50- 70 BCE.

    Their modus operandi was a kind of ancient "false flagging".

    They would choose large gatherings ....hide daggers in their shrouds,.... then attack and kill their pre-determined victims.

    They would disguise their culpability , by wailing (most loudly)at the tragedy of the terror attack, even to the point of demanding blood vengeance , thereby concealing themselves from scrutiny, as being the terrorists.


    Thank goodness that doesn't happen today.

    Right, JR.

    There is even a debate among historians, whether the full title of Judas, “Judas Iscariot” was not a false derivation.

    That a misattribution of his home town, “Iscariot”, with his (real ?) occupation may have occurred.

    as a member of ” The Sicarii”.

    “Judas Iscariot”……”Judas Sicarii”.

    Interesting, when you think about it.. No ?

    The idea that a member of the very first terrorist group in history, “the Sicarii,”used deception to infiltrate the inner circle of Jesus of Nazareth, to make way for his capture and subsequent crucifixion….may not be true.

    I wasn’t there 2000 years ago, so I cannot say that this is what happened .

    But I cannot say it wasn’t what happened ,either.

    Can you ?

    Read More
  81. Sam Shama says:

    Jonathan a glance at some of the comments tells a story of friendly fire from your high iq target audience riddling your body.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    HIQI BSG

    as in generator

    , @Khan Bodin
    Germans should have been smarter, but you cannot be smarter when you had been build up for the sole purpose of fighting the Soviets. All about Germans in WW2 reminds me of Japanese. You know that around 70% of all Japanese casualties in the WW2 came by the hands of Chinese, hm? They were never a land power, Japanese. Always a sea one just like the Anglos. But to the point, Japanese suffering heavy casualties then decided to add another big enemy by attacking Murica. Very stupid. But when you find out that Japanese Emperor’s grandfather, the Meiji Emperor, was Toranosuke Omura, a person of non-imperial blood selected for the role of Emperor by the Iwasaski family of the Choshu clan, then it all makes sense. The Choshu clan was the Rothschild family’s instrument, their agents. So Japanese did everything their enemy demanded of them. So did Germany.
    , @Kiza
    Sam, what you call the friendly fire I perceive to be just friendly criticism. Jonathan is an initiator of the discussion and we are his contributors by way of criticism. That is a lively intellectual debate that unz.com offers, nothing sinister in it unless you want to see something sinister. There are also unfriendly critics - those who dismiss almost all of his essay and stick to the established truths (or establishment truths). What to write about those?
  82. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    Jonathan a glance at some of the comments tells a story of friendly fire from your high iq target audience riddling your body.

    HIQI BSG

    as in generator

    Read More
  83. @Jonathan Revusky


    Is it really the case that Churchill basically bankrupted the British Empire in order to stay in the war to save Stalin?
     
    Also, in order not to surrender.
     
    Well, that's just more typical conventional narrative that is actually extremely dubious. Hitler was not demanding unconditional surrender from Britain at all. One very murky event is the flight of Rudolf Hess (ultimately to Scotland) where he was taken prisoner but did have the opportunity to table some serious proposals for ending the state of war between the two countries.

    What seems to be the case is that Hess was imprisoned for the rest of his life, despite the fact that he was not really guilty of anything much per se, and it was probably to hush up just how generous an offer Hitler had in fact made.

    All of this is very plausible, to me, anyway. When Hess made the flight in May 1941, Germany was on the verge of attacking the USSR so Hitler was very very interested in making a separate deal with the Brits just to free him to smash the USSR. It is plausible to me that it had to be kept secret just how generous an offer Hitler had made. Meanwhile, the British people were told that they were staying in the war and enduring all the bombing and privations and hardship in order to avoid surrender.

    (Okay, just kidding. I know that all can't be true. Churchill and the British government could not possibly have been lying to the people. Never mind...)

    Well, that’s just more typical conventional narrative that is actually extremely dubious. Hitler was not demanding unconditional surrender from Britain at all.

    I only said surrender. Nothing about it being unconditional. Please also answer my previous point, ref

    This is pure sophism and it ends up in the solipsistic dead-end of ‘I can only know myself.’ All theories are imperfect therefore if perfection is your standard you will have no theories on anything, which means you believe nothing. That is stupid. To live in this world you have to pick the best fitting theory and the normal account of 9/11 is precisely that.

    I know it uses less than common words in places but all can be found on the UK high school philosophy exam. It really isn’t very complicated, nor controversial and it is precisely why your article goes nowhere.

    This is a shame as you do grasp that there are narratives changing how we perceive things and that there is a lot of power in words and so on.

    iffen got it right when he said ‘He is aware of the power inherent in controlling the meaning of words like conspiracy, anti-Semite, race, etc. and how they are used, he just doesn’t know what to do with that realization.’

    The problem then though is that acting upon iffen’s point is really hard. Everything becomes very complicated and hard to conceptualise. It requires real sophistication. On the other hand, you seem wedded to a partially juvenile Hitler was right and the Jews are bad type of thinking. You remind me of someone I know. How the quite smart mind is driven mad by the narratives that are pushed!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky


    Well, that’s just more typical conventional narrative that is actually extremely dubious. Hitler was not demanding unconditional surrender from Britain at all.
     
    I only said surrender. Nothing about it being unconditional.
     
    Well, I only said "unconditional surrender" because that was what the allies later demanded of both Germany and Japan. I could have perfectly well just said "surrender" above. So you're just engaging in vacuous quibbling.

    The point here is that the way you are framing this is almost certainly a misrepresentation of what really happened. Britain did not continue the war with Germany alone after the fall of France because she was faced with that or surrender. Okay, I know this is the version you were taught in school at an impressionable age and you are duly repeating it. However, a lot of growing up involves realizing that stories you were told as a child are not true. For example, Santa Claus and so forth....

    To live in this world you have to pick the best fitting theory and the normal account of 9/11 is precisely that.
     
    I infer that you mean that the story of the 19 suicidal hijackers, all of it being orchestrated by the bearded religious fanatic from a cave. That is, for you, the "best fitting theory".

    Well, actually, not only is this NOT the "best fitting theory", the story is not even possible for a variety of reasons. There is a vast literature on this now and not much excuse for still believing the story.

    But, fine, for the sake of argument, you say it's the best fitting theory, so presumably there is some shred if proof that said story is true, no? Could you outline what, in your opinion, is the strongest available evidence for this "best fitting theory"?
  84. @Sam Shama
    Jonathan a glance at some of the comments tells a story of friendly fire from your high iq target audience riddling your body.

    Germans should have been smarter, but you cannot be smarter when you had been build up for the sole purpose of fighting the Soviets. All about Germans in WW2 reminds me of Japanese. You know that around 70% of all Japanese casualties in the WW2 came by the hands of Chinese, hm? They were never a land power, Japanese. Always a sea one just like the Anglos. But to the point, Japanese suffering heavy casualties then decided to add another big enemy by attacking Murica. Very stupid. But when you find out that Japanese Emperor’s grandfather, the Meiji Emperor, was Toranosuke Omura, a person of non-imperial blood selected for the role of Emperor by the Iwasaski family of the Choshu clan, then it all makes sense. The Choshu clan was the Rothschild family’s instrument, their agents. So Japanese did everything their enemy demanded of them. So did Germany.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    God has truly blessed me with enough years to see this.

    The Japanese Jews what done it!

  85. iffen says:
    @Khan Bodin
    Germans should have been smarter, but you cannot be smarter when you had been build up for the sole purpose of fighting the Soviets. All about Germans in WW2 reminds me of Japanese. You know that around 70% of all Japanese casualties in the WW2 came by the hands of Chinese, hm? They were never a land power, Japanese. Always a sea one just like the Anglos. But to the point, Japanese suffering heavy casualties then decided to add another big enemy by attacking Murica. Very stupid. But when you find out that Japanese Emperor’s grandfather, the Meiji Emperor, was Toranosuke Omura, a person of non-imperial blood selected for the role of Emperor by the Iwasaski family of the Choshu clan, then it all makes sense. The Choshu clan was the Rothschild family’s instrument, their agents. So Japanese did everything their enemy demanded of them. So did Germany.

    God has truly blessed me with enough years to see this.

    The Japanese Jews what done it!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    You beat me to it!

    P.S. Let's ask Art, shall we? Art was the Japanese Jew a BIG JEW or a Little Jew? Maybe a yellow Jew?

    , @Khan Bodin
    No, they were Japanese working for the westerners, in this case for the Jewish House of Rothschild, and the Jewish House of Rothschild itself is working for someone else. You should check it out. You will find the answer even in the Encyclopedia Britannica. But nobody disputes that Jews are criminals. Whenever a chance for material or any other gain present itself, Jews always readily jump on it, without any regards for the morals. You display that behavior yourself right now, defending the notoriously criminal house of Rothschild because you are a Jew. Sam Shama is a Jew too. I can tell you know. I have a nose for such things. >)

    I'll tell you something else. House of Rothschild didn't defend you, instead they were helping Hitler, because good Jesuits follow orders. You are not smart you know. Not even close.

  86. Sam Shama says:
    @iffen
    God has truly blessed me with enough years to see this.

    The Japanese Jews what done it!

    You beat me to it!

    P.S. Let’s ask Art, shall we? Art was the Japanese Jew a BIG JEW or a Little Jew? Maybe a yellow Jew?

    Read More
  87. 1. Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were allies
    2. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor
    3. Germany declared war on the USA

    Is there some part of this that you do not understand?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    1. Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were allies
    2. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor
    3. Germany declared war on the USA

    Is there some part of this that you do not understand?
     
    Uhh, yeah, actually, there is. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941. Hitler declared war on the U.S., I assume, maybe a day or two after that.

    The U.S. started shipping large amounts of aid to the USSR almost as soon as Germany attacked, in summer of 1941.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_USSR

    The question I posed is why the U.S. provided such a lot of aid to the USSR at this point in history, beginning pretty much immediately after the German invasion.

    So are you claiming seriously that an event that happened in December of 1941 is the cause of why the U.S. started the extensive of aid to the USSR various months before that!!!??? In other words, event A that precedes event B was caused by event B?

    Well, yeah, this is very typical of TITT explanations. You take an event that occurred AFTER another event and claim that it caused the preceding event!

    Okay, I know that was what they told you on the History Channel so it must be true, but did you ever really think about this explanation? Like... does it make sense?
  88. Re: this link from the article

    In the UK this is unavailable. The YouTube page states:

    “This video contains content from Warner Chappell, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.”

    Warner Chappell is the music publishing arm of Warner Music Group.

    Why is this? The Nuland/Pyatt conversation was leaked by the Russian state. Does the YouTube content include music or images owned by Warner?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Why is this?
     
    LOL. I should decline to answer this question. You would likely brand me a "conspiracy theorist". Perish the thought. It's surely just an innocent coincidence!

    It's on liveleak as well. Maybe you can get it there.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2d3_1391780547
    , @anonymous
    Warner Chappell may own the Sex Pistols recording used at the end of the video. Is that "Occam's Razor"?
  89. @This Is Our Home

    Well, that’s just more typical conventional narrative that is actually extremely dubious. Hitler was not demanding unconditional surrender from Britain at all.
     
    I only said surrender. Nothing about it being unconditional. Please also answer my previous point, ref

    This is pure sophism and it ends up in the solipsistic dead-end of ‘I can only know myself.’ All theories are imperfect therefore if perfection is your standard you will have no theories on anything, which means you believe nothing. That is stupid. To live in this world you have to pick the best fitting theory and the normal account of 9/11 is precisely that.
     
    I know it uses less than common words in places but all can be found on the UK high school philosophy exam. It really isn't very complicated, nor controversial and it is precisely why your article goes nowhere.

    This is a shame as you do grasp that there are narratives changing how we perceive things and that there is a lot of power in words and so on.

    iffen got it right when he said 'He is aware of the power inherent in controlling the meaning of words like conspiracy, anti-Semite, race, etc. and how they are used, he just doesn’t know what to do with that realization.'

    The problem then though is that acting upon iffen's point is really hard. Everything becomes very complicated and hard to conceptualise. It requires real sophistication. On the other hand, you seem wedded to a partially juvenile Hitler was right and the Jews are bad type of thinking. You remind me of someone I know. How the quite smart mind is driven mad by the narratives that are pushed!

    Well, that’s just more typical conventional narrative that is actually extremely dubious. Hitler was not demanding unconditional surrender from Britain at all.

    I only said surrender. Nothing about it being unconditional.

    Well, I only said “unconditional surrender” because that was what the allies later demanded of both Germany and Japan. I could have perfectly well just said “surrender” above. So you’re just engaging in vacuous quibbling.

    The point here is that the way you are framing this is almost certainly a misrepresentation of what really happened. Britain did not continue the war with Germany alone after the fall of France because she was faced with that or surrender. Okay, I know this is the version you were taught in school at an impressionable age and you are duly repeating it. However, a lot of growing up involves realizing that stories you were told as a child are not true. For example, Santa Claus and so forth….

    To live in this world you have to pick the best fitting theory and the normal account of 9/11 is precisely that.

    I infer that you mean that the story of the 19 suicidal hijackers, all of it being orchestrated by the bearded religious fanatic from a cave. That is, for you, the “best fitting theory”.

    Well, actually, not only is this NOT the “best fitting theory”, the story is not even possible for a variety of reasons. There is a vast literature on this now and not much excuse for still believing the story.

    But, fine, for the sake of argument, you say it’s the best fitting theory, so presumably there is some shred if proof that said story is true, no? Could you outline what, in your opinion, is the strongest available evidence for this “best fitting theory”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @This Is Our Home

    The point here is that the way you are framing this is almost certainly a misrepresentation of what really happened. Britain did not continue the war with Germany alone after the fall of France because she was faced with that or surrender.
     
    It is my best fit theory. After all, hubris and price are hardly rare human traits. What's your best fit theory?

    I infer that you mean that the story of the 19 suicidal hijackers, all of it being orchestrated by the bearded religious fanatic from a cave. That is, for you, the “best fitting theory”.

    Well, actually, not only is this NOT the best fitting theory
     
    You say this but you propose no other. You are just a sophist - an empty thinker who has convinced himself that he is clever. People like you have always existed, look it up! Either that or actually propose a best fitting theory and your strongest evidence actually for that theory.

    (This is the second time that you have dodged this question, I will continue to bring it up until you actually address it.)
  90. @James N. Kennett
    1. Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were allies
    2. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor
    3. Germany declared war on the USA

    Is there some part of this that you do not understand?

    1. Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were allies
    2. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor
    3. Germany declared war on the USA

    Is there some part of this that you do not understand?

    Uhh, yeah, actually, there is. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941. Hitler declared war on the U.S., I assume, maybe a day or two after that.

    The U.S. started shipping large amounts of aid to the USSR almost as soon as Germany attacked, in summer of 1941.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_USSR

    The question I posed is why the U.S. provided such a lot of aid to the USSR at this point in history, beginning pretty much immediately after the German invasion.

    So are you claiming seriously that an event that happened in December of 1941 is the cause of why the U.S. started the extensive of aid to the USSR various months before that!!!??? In other words, event A that precedes event B was caused by event B?

    Well, yeah, this is very typical of TITT explanations. You take an event that occurred AFTER another event and claim that it caused the preceding event!

    Okay, I know that was what they told you on the History Channel so it must be true, but did you ever really think about this explanation? Like… does it make sense?

    Read More
    • Replies: @James N. Kennett

    So are you claiming seriously that an event that happened in December of 1941 is the cause of why the U.S. started the extensive of aid to the USSR various months before that!!!??? In other words, event A that precedes event B was caused by event B?
     
    Er, no. If you are talking only about the period between the German invasion of the USSR, and Pearl Harbor, America had good reasons to fear Germany, because they had recently fought them in WWI. The Soviet Union was still weak: it could not have survived without British and American support, and it had suffered ignominious defeat by Germany in WWI. Germany was by far the greater threat to the USA. The USSR was not yet the military superpower that it became in the 1950s.

    The other capitalist countries were already at war with Germany, either (France, Britain) because they did not want Germany to expand without limits, or (Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway) because Hitler attacked them.

    If you are in search of TITTs, this is not the best place to look.
    , @iffen
    The question I posed is why the U.S. provided such a lot of aid to the USSR

    Because the people running the US wanted the commies to kill as many Nazis as possible. It was a good thing. Kill as many Nazis as possible. We did it directly and indirectly. Good for us.

  91. @James N. Kennett
    Re: this link from the article

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV9J6sxCs5k

    In the UK this is unavailable. The YouTube page states:

    "This video contains content from Warner Chappell, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."

    Warner Chappell is the music publishing arm of Warner Music Group.

    Why is this? The Nuland/Pyatt conversation was leaked by the Russian state. Does the YouTube content include music or images owned by Warner?

    Why is this?

    LOL. I should decline to answer this question. You would likely brand me a “conspiracy theorist”. Perish the thought. It’s surely just an innocent coincidence!

    It’s on liveleak as well. Maybe you can get it there.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2d3_1391780547

    Read More
    • Replies: @James N. Kennett

    LOL. I should decline to answer this question. You would likely brand me a “conspiracy theorist”. Perish the thought. It’s surely just an innocent coincidence!
     
    On the contrary - if there is no prima facie reason in copyright law to suppress the video, I am sure you will be glad to include it in your list of evidence.

    FWIW, I thought your article started well. The ideas about "blowback" and taboos are definitely worth further thought. However, as soon as you start blaming every setback on Jewry, it reminds me of the humorous article that blamed the French Revolution on Jewish traders who engineered a shortage of culottes.
  92. @Jonathan Revusky

    Why is this?
     
    LOL. I should decline to answer this question. You would likely brand me a "conspiracy theorist". Perish the thought. It's surely just an innocent coincidence!

    It's on liveleak as well. Maybe you can get it there.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2d3_1391780547

    LOL. I should decline to answer this question. You would likely brand me a “conspiracy theorist”. Perish the thought. It’s surely just an innocent coincidence!

    On the contrary – if there is no prima facie reason in copyright law to suppress the video, I am sure you will be glad to include it in your list of evidence.

    FWIW, I thought your article started well. The ideas about “blowback” and taboos are definitely worth further thought. However, as soon as you start blaming every setback on Jewry, it reminds me of the humorous article that blamed the French Revolution on Jewish traders who engineered a shortage of culottes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    However, as soon as you start blaming every setback on Jewry,
     
    Do you seriously think that is a fair characterization of anything I said in the article?

    Or are you just trolling?

    Do you still maintain that events that occurred in December 1941 are the cause of things that happened earlier in that year?
  93. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @James N. Kennett
    Re: this link from the article

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV9J6sxCs5k

    In the UK this is unavailable. The YouTube page states:

    "This video contains content from Warner Chappell, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."

    Warner Chappell is the music publishing arm of Warner Music Group.

    Why is this? The Nuland/Pyatt conversation was leaked by the Russian state. Does the YouTube content include music or images owned by Warner?

    Warner Chappell may own the Sex Pistols recording used at the end of the video. Is that “Occam’s Razor”?

    Read More
  94. @Art
    I said that we should avoid using the word “conspiracy” because the term had been overloaded. You apparently took that to mean that I was saying that there actually were no conspiracies, that nobody ever conspired!

    From the article: In popular usage, the person who believes in conspiracies, the conspiracy theorist, is taken to be self-evidently crazy and anything he says can be dismissed out of hand.
     
    You are correct – I got it wrong – you said it right – I miss read the thrust of your article - I apologize for my negative words ----- Art

    From the article: Once you recognize that a word has become effectively unusable, you just have to look for an alternative term to use. In the case of “conspiracy”, I would propose that we talk more in terms of “deep events” and “deep politics”.
     
    May I disagree, adding the word “theory” to the word “conspiracy” changes the whole complexion and meaning of the thought. “Theory” automatically puts the “conspiracy” in question.

    Faint heart never won fair maiden. Conspiracy is a strong word with large implications – it should stand along. Using something else is weak. A conspiracy is a conspiracy is a conspiracy.

    You are correct – I got it wrong – you said it right – I miss read the thrust of your article – I apologize for my negative words —– Art

    Thanks, Art. Of course, I accept your apology. Today is the proverbial cold day in hell. Somebody on the Internet admitted he was wrong.

    I was wrong once too. Some time back in the eighties. But, like you, I also promptly apologized several years later.

    May I disagree, adding the word “theory” to the word “conspiracy” changes the whole complexion and meaning of the thought. “Theory” automatically puts the “conspiracy” in question.

    Uhh, yeah, I agree that the term “conspiracy” becomes more loaded, seriously weaponized, when you put “theory” or “theorist” after it.

    Regardless, what I’m really getting at there is the whole way they frame things with language. So my sense of things is that we have to be constantly thinking about a “counter-framing”, to be on our toes to figure out a way to turn the tables on the fuckers. To just passively accept the way they frame things is not a winning strategy.

    Read More
  95. @Jonathan Revusky

    1. Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were allies
    2. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor
    3. Germany declared war on the USA

    Is there some part of this that you do not understand?
     
    Uhh, yeah, actually, there is. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941. Hitler declared war on the U.S., I assume, maybe a day or two after that.

    The U.S. started shipping large amounts of aid to the USSR almost as soon as Germany attacked, in summer of 1941.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_USSR

    The question I posed is why the U.S. provided such a lot of aid to the USSR at this point in history, beginning pretty much immediately after the German invasion.

    So are you claiming seriously that an event that happened in December of 1941 is the cause of why the U.S. started the extensive of aid to the USSR various months before that!!!??? In other words, event A that precedes event B was caused by event B?

    Well, yeah, this is very typical of TITT explanations. You take an event that occurred AFTER another event and claim that it caused the preceding event!

    Okay, I know that was what they told you on the History Channel so it must be true, but did you ever really think about this explanation? Like... does it make sense?

    So are you claiming seriously that an event that happened in December of 1941 is the cause of why the U.S. started the extensive of aid to the USSR various months before that!!!??? In other words, event A that precedes event B was caused by event B?

    Er, no. If you are talking only about the period between the German invasion of the USSR, and Pearl Harbor, America had good reasons to fear Germany, because they had recently fought them in WWI. The Soviet Union was still weak: it could not have survived without British and American support, and it had suffered ignominious defeat by Germany in WWI. Germany was by far the greater threat to the USA. The USSR was not yet the military superpower that it became in the 1950s.

    The other capitalist countries were already at war with Germany, either (France, Britain) because they did not want Germany to expand without limits, or (Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway) because Hitler attacked them.

    If you are in search of TITTs, this is not the best place to look.

    Read More
  96. @anonymous
    Warner Chappell may own the Sex Pistols recording used at the end of the video. Is that "Occam's Razor"?

    Indeed, thank you.

    Read More
  97. @utu
    I think I am with you on your blowback argument which in my opinion is a very good argument. Your argument should give some people a pause and make them wonder and possibly consider the false flag nature of the attacks.

    The reason I brought up Menachem Begin is to point to the most likely source of the no-blowback false flag (FF) terrorism. It is perpetrated by those who have the know how. Certainly Israelis have the know how. It may go back very far. It may owe lots to Ochrana and NKVD. Some Antisemitic pogroms to stimulate emigration to Israel after WW II certainly were false flags (eg. 1946 Kielce in Poland). The Lavon Affair is the best proven case of FF terrorism. Not every country for whatever reason mastered the FF know how or had guts to attack itself. So, I am sure, some FF operations are outsourced to the ones who know it the best. Till 2015 we did not know that France developed the capability of FF auto-terrorism. Did they need help or were they helped against their own wishes in Charlie Hebdo and later in Paris?

    BTW, there is a discussion next door at Steve Sailer on there recent interview with Jesse Hughes of Death Metal...Paris attack...

    BTW, there is a discussion next door at Steve Sailer on there recent interview with Jesse Hughes of Death Metal…Paris attack…

    Sailer has such a following and I can’t understand why. Let me guess, he eats up this bullshit with a spoon, no? Such totally fake bullshit.

    Anyway, regarding that Paris thing, in the Bataclan theater in Paris, a while back I remembered something I had seen a while back, vaguely remembered it, and googled it and there it was. A skit from the short-lived Richard Pryor Show in 1977(!). 39 years ago.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqteDk15Ud8

    This is Richard Pryor satirizing the Heavy Metal music genre. What I find bizarre is that the band that was playing at the theatre where most of the people were killed in Paris (allegedly killed anyway) was a group called the Eagles of Death Metal. They were performing a song called “Kiss the Devil” when gunmen came in and started shooting (allegedly). (I keep saying allegedly because it appears that the whole thing is a staged hoax, like Sandy Hook or whatever.)

    But seriously, watch that Richard Pryor skit. What I find very odd about it is that this “Black Death” heavy metal group that performs in the skit, which is just a joke, to my ears, sounds about as good musically as the actual Eagles of Death Metal group that was performing in Paris! I looked up some of their music and tried to listen to it and…. the Richard Pryor parody seems like the music is about as good.

    To be clear, I’m not saying that the Richard Pryor skit from 38 years ago has any real connection with the recent events in Paris, just that the similarities are kind of bizarre. I really get the feeling that the Paris thing was a staged hoax, so the whole thing has aspects of macabre humour, like the song “Kiss the Devil” being played and all this. (Could they have been inspired by this though???)

    In the skit, Richard Pryor is having a wicked bit of fun making fun of that “Death Metal” genre, I guess. I’m not sure it’s actually that funny though, sort of just weird. Pryor was certainly a comedic genius, but sometimes, you know, he’s sort of experimenting/playing around, and the results are mixed. Also, of course, he had a pretty severe cocaine habit at the time, apparently…. probably he and his collaborators were stoned out of their minds, so the skit would have seemed hilarious to them while doing it…

    But anyway, I vaguely remembered this Richard Pryor skit and googled it and watched it again, and it was like… ooohhh shit….

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Sailer has such a following and I can’t understand why.

    Yeah, it's quite understandable why you can't.
    , @utu
    The Richard Pryor skit! Wow. I do not know what to think. The similarity is v. disturbing. How do you find gems like that.

    As far as the music quality I do not know. For me all Heavy Metal sounds the same. Today they had clip on NPR about Heavy Metal in Finland, country with largest number of HM bands per capita.. It was pretty bad.

    I do not think that Steve Sailer got the discussion he was looking for. Too many people there are skeptical of Jesse Hughes veracity. I glanced at the discussion in Taki's and there it went as it was meant to, i.e., Islam and Muslim bashing.
  98. @James N. Kennett

    LOL. I should decline to answer this question. You would likely brand me a “conspiracy theorist”. Perish the thought. It’s surely just an innocent coincidence!
     
    On the contrary - if there is no prima facie reason in copyright law to suppress the video, I am sure you will be glad to include it in your list of evidence.

    FWIW, I thought your article started well. The ideas about "blowback" and taboos are definitely worth further thought. However, as soon as you start blaming every setback on Jewry, it reminds me of the humorous article that blamed the French Revolution on Jewish traders who engineered a shortage of culottes.

    However, as soon as you start blaming every setback on Jewry,

    Do you seriously think that is a fair characterization of anything I said in the article?

    Or are you just trolling?

    Do you still maintain that events that occurred in December 1941 are the cause of things that happened earlier in that year?

    Read More
    • Replies: @James N. Kennett

    Do you still maintain that events that occurred in December 1941 are the cause of things that happened earlier in that year?
     
    See #96.
  99. Kiza says:
    @Max Payne

    If you think that the enemy would have done anything different you are a bigger fool than I thought.
     
    False. Just because you (and your people of course) look for some ultra-evil way to deal with situations doesn't mean the rest of humanity follows the same recipe.

    A criminal will always find ways to skirt the law. Normal human beings try to follow it as best they can. It's not unusual for criminals to mistaken their behavior as normal everyday practice ("everyone does this").

    Criminal mentality. It does extend to nation-states.

    Next.

    Dear Max, if this is the same ex-military (Marine, USAF, something) Diana I encountered a while ago then you are totally wasting your time on a totally brainwashed US supremacist character. I still do read her/his comments but only for the nasty pleasure of laughing at the effects of systemic brainwashing. One could not find anything more opposite to her/his mindset then Jonathan’s article, what an irony!

    Next.

    Read More
  100. @Jonathan Revusky

    However, as soon as you start blaming every setback on Jewry,
     
    Do you seriously think that is a fair characterization of anything I said in the article?

    Or are you just trolling?

    Do you still maintain that events that occurred in December 1941 are the cause of things that happened earlier in that year?

    Do you still maintain that events that occurred in December 1941 are the cause of things that happened earlier in that year?

    See #96.

    Read More
  101. iffen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    1. Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were allies
    2. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor
    3. Germany declared war on the USA

    Is there some part of this that you do not understand?
     
    Uhh, yeah, actually, there is. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941. Hitler declared war on the U.S., I assume, maybe a day or two after that.

    The U.S. started shipping large amounts of aid to the USSR almost as soon as Germany attacked, in summer of 1941.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_USSR

    The question I posed is why the U.S. provided such a lot of aid to the USSR at this point in history, beginning pretty much immediately after the German invasion.

    So are you claiming seriously that an event that happened in December of 1941 is the cause of why the U.S. started the extensive of aid to the USSR various months before that!!!??? In other words, event A that precedes event B was caused by event B?

    Well, yeah, this is very typical of TITT explanations. You take an event that occurred AFTER another event and claim that it caused the preceding event!

    Okay, I know that was what they told you on the History Channel so it must be true, but did you ever really think about this explanation? Like... does it make sense?

    The question I posed is why the U.S. provided such a lot of aid to the USSR

    Because the people running the US wanted the commies to kill as many Nazis as possible. It was a good thing. Kill as many Nazis as possible. We did it directly and indirectly. Good for us.

    Read More
  102. iffen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    BTW, there is a discussion next door at Steve Sailer on there recent interview with Jesse Hughes of Death Metal…Paris attack…
     
    Sailer has such a following and I can't understand why. Let me guess, he eats up this bullshit with a spoon, no? Such totally fake bullshit.

    Anyway, regarding that Paris thing, in the Bataclan theater in Paris, a while back I remembered something I had seen a while back, vaguely remembered it, and googled it and there it was. A skit from the short-lived Richard Pryor Show in 1977(!). 39 years ago.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqteDk15Ud8

    This is Richard Pryor satirizing the Heavy Metal music genre. What I find bizarre is that the band that was playing at the theatre where most of the people were killed in Paris (allegedly killed anyway) was a group called the Eagles of Death Metal. They were performing a song called "Kiss the Devil" when gunmen came in and started shooting (allegedly). (I keep saying allegedly because it appears that the whole thing is a staged hoax, like Sandy Hook or whatever.)

    But seriously, watch that Richard Pryor skit. What I find very odd about it is that this "Black Death" heavy metal group that performs in the skit, which is just a joke, to my ears, sounds about as good musically as the actual Eagles of Death Metal group that was performing in Paris! I looked up some of their music and tried to listen to it and.... the Richard Pryor parody seems like the music is about as good.

    To be clear, I'm not saying that the Richard Pryor skit from 38 years ago has any real connection with the recent events in Paris, just that the similarities are kind of bizarre. I really get the feeling that the Paris thing was a staged hoax, so the whole thing has aspects of macabre humour, like the song "Kiss the Devil" being played and all this. (Could they have been inspired by this though???)

    In the skit, Richard Pryor is having a wicked bit of fun making fun of that "Death Metal" genre, I guess. I'm not sure it's actually that funny though, sort of just weird. Pryor was certainly a comedic genius, but sometimes, you know, he's sort of experimenting/playing around, and the results are mixed. Also, of course, he had a pretty severe cocaine habit at the time, apparently.... probably he and his collaborators were stoned out of their minds, so the skit would have seemed hilarious to them while doing it...

    But anyway, I vaguely remembered this Richard Pryor skit and googled it and watched it again, and it was like... ooohhh shit....

    Sailer has such a following and I can’t understand why.

    Yeah, it’s quite understandable why you can’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    Sailer and all his followers should form local HIQIs anonymous support groups. The problem is that the first step is always recognizing that you have a problem. They haven't gotten there yet.
  103. Kiza says:
    @Jonathan Revusky


    Is it really the case that Churchill basically bankrupted the British Empire in order to stay in the war to save Stalin?
     
    Also, in order not to surrender.
     
    Well, that's just more typical conventional narrative that is actually extremely dubious. Hitler was not demanding unconditional surrender from Britain at all. One very murky event is the flight of Rudolf Hess (ultimately to Scotland) where he was taken prisoner but did have the opportunity to table some serious proposals for ending the state of war between the two countries.

    What seems to be the case is that Hess was imprisoned for the rest of his life, despite the fact that he was not really guilty of anything much per se, and it was probably to hush up just how generous an offer Hitler had in fact made.

    All of this is very plausible, to me, anyway. When Hess made the flight in May 1941, Germany was on the verge of attacking the USSR so Hitler was very very interested in making a separate deal with the Brits just to free him to smash the USSR. It is plausible to me that it had to be kept secret just how generous an offer Hitler had made. Meanwhile, the British people were told that they were staying in the war and enduring all the bombing and privations and hardship in order to avoid surrender.

    (Okay, just kidding. I know that all can't be true. Churchill and the British government could not possibly have been lying to the people. Never mind...)

    When I read this point of yours Jonathan, that Churchill and the British were fighting for USSR, I did find it a bit of a stretch, mainly because of the poor benefits of such fighting, not because I would accept any historic dogma. Knowing the British, I would lean towards the belief that they were driven by self-interest and a pompous belief in their eternal empire (despite empty treasury), against the upstart Germans. But your explanation of the Hess story is highly likely – he did appear to have given a chance to the British to bail out of the WW2 and the leadership declined. I wish I knew exactly why. The life-long imprisonment of Hess is another perfect conspiracy theory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    When I read this point of yours Jonathan, that Churchill and the British were fighting for USSR, I did find it a bit of a stretch, mainly because of the poor benefits of such fighting
     
    Well, the point I was making was that this was the result of the Anglo-American policy and was even a predictable result, it seems. I did not really mean that Churchill, for example, wanted to turn the USSR into a superpower that controlled most of Europe. However, he, along with Roosevelt of course, embarked on a policy that led to that result.

    I just asked why. So when you refer to the "poor benefits" of such a policy, that's precisely the question I am posing, right?

    The main point here that I want to make is that the conventional history we are taught in school and on the History Channel simply offers no satisfying answer to such basic questions. It just doesn't. Yet you have these middlebrow HIQIs coming out of the woodwork now repeating the History Channel narrative telling me in a condescending, pedantic way that I'm the one who doesn't understand.

    Like, you have the one HIQI telling me that the reason that the U.S. decided to aid the USSR so much is Pearl Harbor. So I point out to him that the aid to the USSR predates the Pearl Harbor attack so Pearl Harbor cannot be the cause. (If A happens and then B happens afterwards, B did not cause A.)

    Before that, another HIQI claimed that the reason that Britain stayed in the war even after the German attack on Russia was because Germany was bombing Britain. It didn't occur to this person that he had causality reversed, that Germany was bombing Britain precisely because Britain was choosing to stay at war!

    The funny thing about these exchanges is that, by all rights, these points I made, that people had completely reversed the timeline and reversed causality, should be knock-out blows. They demonstrate that the other person's History Channel Roger Rabbit Narrative history is inadequate, right?

    But no, you whack them up the side of head like that and they don't really acknowledge that their point was blown out of the water. It does kind of get back to the "Blowhard Tactics" I mention in the essay. Never concede a point.... But obviously, I can't continue the debate too much more with such people. It is a waste of time, after all.

    But your explanation of the Hess story is highly likely – he did appear to have given a chance to the British to bail out of the WW2 and the leadership declined. I wish I knew exactly why.
     
    I think the British were told that they could keep their empire and all Hitler wanted was that they not make trouble for him while he was busy smashing the Soviet Union.

    You know, from Hitler's point of view, Churchill was being utterly unreasonable. In his world view, it was a logical goal of Germany AND France and Britain and the rest of the western countries to want to smash the Soviet Union, get rid of Bolshevism for good. Yet, he, Hitler, was willing to do all the heavy lifting to make it happen. It was Germany that was willing to pay the price for eliminating Bolshevism and the other western countries were essentially free-riding. I'm pretty sure that was his world view.

    As for Britain and the U.S. sending so much aid to the USSR, I look at this and think that this is actually so sutprising that, possibly, Hitler did not anticipate it. I mean, he probably just figured that, at worst, the Anglo-American powers would just stay neutral when he attacked Russia, because he probably thought that they wanted to destroy Bolshevism as much as he did.

    Now, as for the Jewish question, all I'm saying is that this definitely was a significant power block, there is no real doubt about this, and if you want to understand what happened, you can't just pretend that that power block did not exist! But, obviously, then they get into straw man arguments, pretending that I claimed that said Jewish power block was the sole factor. In all of history even! The other HIQI has constructed the straw-man (to which I have not yet responded) that I am supposed to explain U.S. food aid to North Korea in terms of the Jewish power block! As if I had argued that the Jewish power block explained everything! LOL. Seriously, how is one supposed to respond to such idiocy? (Or should one respond to it?)

    Obviously, what I meant was that the Jewish power block was one factor, and it's an important enough factor that if you deliberately leave it out (because it's a taboo) then the resulting explanation is not going to be fully satisfying. When you have to ignore one major aspect of a situation and then construct an explanation that leaves it out, you get what I call Taboo Induced Tortuous Theories, which are TITTs. You end up with explanations that don't really fit the facts in a satisfactory manner.
  104. Kiza says:
    @Sam Shama
    Jonathan a glance at some of the comments tells a story of friendly fire from your high iq target audience riddling your body.

    Sam, what you call the friendly fire I perceive to be just friendly criticism. Jonathan is an initiator of the discussion and we are his contributors by way of criticism. That is a lively intellectual debate that unz.com offers, nothing sinister in it unless you want to see something sinister. There are also unfriendly critics – those who dismiss almost all of his essay and stick to the established truths (or establishment truths). What to write about those?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Point taken [a little ribbing never hurt anyone]. Look at #111 [and it precedent] and #54 [and it's antecedent]
  105. utu says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    BTW, there is a discussion next door at Steve Sailer on there recent interview with Jesse Hughes of Death Metal…Paris attack…
     
    Sailer has such a following and I can't understand why. Let me guess, he eats up this bullshit with a spoon, no? Such totally fake bullshit.

    Anyway, regarding that Paris thing, in the Bataclan theater in Paris, a while back I remembered something I had seen a while back, vaguely remembered it, and googled it and there it was. A skit from the short-lived Richard Pryor Show in 1977(!). 39 years ago.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqteDk15Ud8

    This is Richard Pryor satirizing the Heavy Metal music genre. What I find bizarre is that the band that was playing at the theatre where most of the people were killed in Paris (allegedly killed anyway) was a group called the Eagles of Death Metal. They were performing a song called "Kiss the Devil" when gunmen came in and started shooting (allegedly). (I keep saying allegedly because it appears that the whole thing is a staged hoax, like Sandy Hook or whatever.)

    But seriously, watch that Richard Pryor skit. What I find very odd about it is that this "Black Death" heavy metal group that performs in the skit, which is just a joke, to my ears, sounds about as good musically as the actual Eagles of Death Metal group that was performing in Paris! I looked up some of their music and tried to listen to it and.... the Richard Pryor parody seems like the music is about as good.

    To be clear, I'm not saying that the Richard Pryor skit from 38 years ago has any real connection with the recent events in Paris, just that the similarities are kind of bizarre. I really get the feeling that the Paris thing was a staged hoax, so the whole thing has aspects of macabre humour, like the song "Kiss the Devil" being played and all this. (Could they have been inspired by this though???)

    In the skit, Richard Pryor is having a wicked bit of fun making fun of that "Death Metal" genre, I guess. I'm not sure it's actually that funny though, sort of just weird. Pryor was certainly a comedic genius, but sometimes, you know, he's sort of experimenting/playing around, and the results are mixed. Also, of course, he had a pretty severe cocaine habit at the time, apparently.... probably he and his collaborators were stoned out of their minds, so the skit would have seemed hilarious to them while doing it...

    But anyway, I vaguely remembered this Richard Pryor skit and googled it and watched it again, and it was like... ooohhh shit....

    The Richard Pryor skit! Wow. I do not know what to think. The similarity is v. disturbing. How do you find gems like that.

    As far as the music quality I do not know. For me all Heavy Metal sounds the same. Today they had clip on NPR about Heavy Metal in Finland, country with largest number of HM bands per capita.. It was pretty bad.

    I do not think that Steve Sailer got the discussion he was looking for. Too many people there are skeptical of Jesse Hughes veracity. I glanced at the discussion in Taki’s and there it went as it was meant to, i.e., Islam and Muslim bashing.

    Read More
  106. geokat62 says:

    The “Blowback” theory of terrorism

    At this point in time, the term “blowback” seems to have gone from being internal CIA jargon to being a sort of shibboleth of the left-liberal intelligentsia. The basic idea is that the major terrorist events of recent history, such as 9/11 or 7/7 in London or the recent events in Paris and Brussels, are a natural (yet unintended) result of the brutal policies of Western governments in far off (largely Muslim) countries. Anybody listening to these people would surely conclude that this is a well established phenomenon. But what is odd is that when you step back and look at this with ample historical perspective, the whole concept looks pretty dubious.

    I guess according to you, Chalmers Johnson, the author of Blowback, was part of the left-liberal intelligentsia? Here’s what wiki has to say about his left-leaning ways:

    A long-time Cold Warrior, he applauded the dissolution of the Soviet Union: “I was a cold warrior. There’s no doubt about that. I believed the Soviet Union was a genuine menace. I still think so.”

    For those who’ve never heard of Chalmers Johnson, he was an American author who wrote numerous books including three that examined the consequences of American Empire: Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis. Here’s an excerpt from his introduction to Blowback, the authoritative book on this “dubious concept”:

    This book is a guide to some of the policies during and after the Cold War that generated, and continue to generate, blowback—a term the CIA invented to describe the likelihood that our covert operations in other people’s countries would result in retaliations against Americans, civilian and military, at home and abroad. Blowback was first published in the spring of 2000, some eighteen months before 9/11. My intention in writing it was to warn my fellow Americans about the nature and conduct of U.S. foreign policy over the previous half-century, focusing particularly on the period after the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991. I argued that many aspects of what the American government had done around the world virtually invited retaliatory attacks from nations and peoples on the receiving end. I did not predict the events of 9/11, but I did clearly state that acts of retaliation were coming and should be anticipated. “World politics in the twenty-first century,” I wrote, “will in all likelihood be driven primarily by blowback from the second half of the twentieth century—that is, from the unintended consequences of the Cold War and the crucial American decision to maintain a Cold War posture in a post–Cold War world.”

    The Wages of Imperialism
    Since 9/11, the number of significant terrorist incidents has grown and increased in intensity. These include the attempt on December 22, 2001, by Richard Reid, a British citizen, to blow up a Miami-bound jet using an explosive device hidden in his shoe; the bombing on October 12, 2002, of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia, killing 202 vacationers, most of them Australians; the May 13, 2003, explosions at three residential compounds and the offices of an American defense contractor in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; the killings three days later, on May 16, 2003, of some 33 people at a restaurant and Jewish community center in Casablanca, Morocco; the use of a car bomb on August 5, 2003, to attack the new Marriott Hotel, a symbol of American imperialism, in Jakarta, the Indonesian capital; the deaths of at least 19 people in an explosion at the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad, August 7, 2003; and the blowing up of the United Nations compound in Baghdad on August 19, 2003, killing Sergio Vieira de Mello, the secretary general’s special representative, and many others. There have also been numerous assassinations of American officials and business people around the world and 184 American service personnel died in Iraq in the six months since May 1, 2003, when President Bush ostentatiously declared that the war was over.
    Beyond terrorism, the danger I foresee is that we are embarked on a path not so dissimilar from that of the former Soviet Union a little more than a decade ago. It collapsed for three reasons—internal economic contradictions, imperial overstretch, and an inability to reform. In every sense, we were by far the wealthier of the two Cold War superpowers, so it will certainly take longer for similar afflictions to do their work. But it is nowhere written that the United States, in its guise as an empire dominating the world, must go on forever. The blowback from the second half of the twentieth century has only just begun.

    While you might think you’ve debunked the blowback theory of terrorism, think again.

    Senator Lloyd Bentsen once said to Senator Dan Quayle, “you’re no Jack Kennedy” and the same could be said of you, “you’re no Chalmers Johnson.”

    Read More
    • Agree: Sam Shama
    • Disagree: edNels
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    I guess according to you, Chalmers Johnson, the author of Blowback, was part of the left-liberal intelligentsia? Here’s what wiki has to say about his left-leaning ways:
     
    I don't know all that much about the late Chalmers Johnson. My impression actually has been that he is kinda... left-liberal wing of the CIA, kind of like Philip Giraldi. But really, where he lies on some left-right spectrum is of no particular importance to me. What matters to me about his work (or any scholar's) is whether it is truthful.

    Anyway, I'm getting a bit of déjã vu here. What you tend to do is you grab some book and then start waving it around like it's the holy bible and start quoting the author of the book like the guy is Jesus Christ and demanding that people read this and respond to it. So, previously, it was this Ryan Mackey jerk and your line was: "Have you read all 306 pages of this guy's brilliant flying pigs treatise?" And then you would copy-paste long extracts from that and demand that people respond to it.

    Now, instead of the Ryan Mackey jerk, it's this Chalmers Johnson and you're waving around this book and quoting it. The funny thing is that, even just looking at some of the quoted material you provide, one can see that the whole thing is basically just garbage.

    For starters, it's a perfect example of the kind of thing I talk about in my article, magic incantations. You say a word and it contains automatic question-begging. Here, it's "blowback" and the guy simply assumes what he needs to prove. It's really crap because just look at some of the excerpt here:

    Since 9/11, the number of significant terrorist incidents has grown and increased in intensity. These include the attempt on December 22, 2001, by Richard Reid, a British citizen, to blow up a Miami-bound jet using an explosive device hidden in his shoe;

     

    In the very excerpt you provide, his first example of "significant terrorist incidents" is this Richard Reid guy, the "shoe bomber". A guy who gets on a plane with an exploding shoe, but his dastardly plan is stopped in the nick of time. (Surprise, surprise...)

    Exploding fucking shoes.... Jaysus....

    I mean, who wrote the script for this? Like, some guy who was a scriptwriter for Get Smart or something? The dastardly terrorist with his exploding shoes. Sometimes a picture tells a thousand words. Here are some images that come up more or less randomly using google image search of this dastardly terrorist, Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=richard+reid&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjlxZyGqeTMAhXGXBoKHSbMB-MQ_AUIBygB&biw=1280&bih=604#tbm=isch&q=richard+reid+shoe+bomber

    Look at this. (Some of the photos that come up are pictures of the alleged exploding shoe.)

    Now, look, guys, just look at this Richard Reid guy. This is some mentally ill loser who got manipulated somehow into playing some role in some Deep State psy-op hoax. If you believe that this guy had any bomb in his shoe that was remotely capable of taking down an airliner in flight, I've got a bridge to sell you.

    Also, if you believe that, why does the guy still have his feet? Surely any bomb of any sort would have at least blown his feet off, no? And then you have this underwear bomber some years later, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. He one-ups Richard Reid. He's got exploding underwear. Or so they say, except tell me one thing, Geo:

    How come Umar is not currently a eunuch?

    It's true that if you look at the pictures available of Umark Farouk, he does not look as self-evidently deranged as Richard Reid, but... regardless, this is just a total hoax. There was a couple from Michigan who were witnesses to that whole underwear bomber thing and here is what they wrote:

    http://haskellfamily.blogspot.com/2011/09/colossal-deceit-known-as-underwear.html

    This poor fool was apparently somehow in the airport in Amsterdam and didn't even have his passport (oops!) and somebody escorted him onto the plane.

    Anyway, getting back to Richard Reid, the guy is not even an Arab or a Muslim by birth. He converted in the prison. How did he even get in touch with Al Qaeda anyway? Just look at that story.

    So this Shoe Bomber story is the first example of "Blowback" that your newfound hero, the late Chalmers Johnson, provides us. Like, Al Qaeda pulls off this spectacular 9/11 thing taking down these massive buildings and what is their follow-up plot? Some loon with exploding shoes!

    What Total bullshit.

    and the same could be said of you, “you’re no Chalmers Johnson.”
     
    Yes, that's true. Chalmers Johnson is a dead bullshitter and I'm a living truth teller.

    Anyway, Geo, why are you here peddling this pathetic bullshit? There are so many other pages you could go and people there are shit eaters like you who slurp all of it with a spoon, but... you're in the wrong place here, man.

    Shoe bomber... Underwear bomber...

    How come no bra bomber? Some bitch puts a bomb in her bra and she's stopped in the nick of time before we have exploding titties!

    And you'd believe that too, man. You are such a pathetic little shit eater, you know that...
  107. @iffen
    Sailer has such a following and I can’t understand why.

    Yeah, it's quite understandable why you can't.

    Sailer and all his followers should form local HIQIs anonymous support groups. The problem is that the first step is always recognizing that you have a problem. They haven’t gotten there yet.

    Read More
  108. @Jonathan Revusky


    Well, that’s just more typical conventional narrative that is actually extremely dubious. Hitler was not demanding unconditional surrender from Britain at all.
     
    I only said surrender. Nothing about it being unconditional.
     
    Well, I only said "unconditional surrender" because that was what the allies later demanded of both Germany and Japan. I could have perfectly well just said "surrender" above. So you're just engaging in vacuous quibbling.

    The point here is that the way you are framing this is almost certainly a misrepresentation of what really happened. Britain did not continue the war with Germany alone after the fall of France because she was faced with that or surrender. Okay, I know this is the version you were taught in school at an impressionable age and you are duly repeating it. However, a lot of growing up involves realizing that stories you were told as a child are not true. For example, Santa Claus and so forth....

    To live in this world you have to pick the best fitting theory and the normal account of 9/11 is precisely that.
     
    I infer that you mean that the story of the 19 suicidal hijackers, all of it being orchestrated by the bearded religious fanatic from a cave. That is, for you, the "best fitting theory".

    Well, actually, not only is this NOT the "best fitting theory", the story is not even possible for a variety of reasons. There is a vast literature on this now and not much excuse for still believing the story.

    But, fine, for the sake of argument, you say it's the best fitting theory, so presumably there is some shred if proof that said story is true, no? Could you outline what, in your opinion, is the strongest available evidence for this "best fitting theory"?

    The point here is that the way you are framing this is almost certainly a misrepresentation of what really happened. Britain did not continue the war with Germany alone after the fall of France because she was faced with that or surrender.

    It is my best fit theory. After all, hubris and price are hardly rare human traits. What’s your best fit theory?

    I infer that you mean that the story of the 19 suicidal hijackers, all of it being orchestrated by the bearded religious fanatic from a cave. That is, for you, the “best fitting theory”.

    Well, actually, not only is this NOT the best fitting theory

    You say this but you propose no other. You are just a sophist – an empty thinker who has convinced himself that he is clever. People like you have always existed, look it up! Either that or actually propose a best fitting theory and your strongest evidence actually for that theory.

    (This is the second time that you have dodged this question, I will continue to bring it up until you actually address it.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky


    The point here is that the way you are framing this is almost certainly a misrepresentation of what really happened. Britain did not continue the war with Germany alone after the fall of France because she was faced with that or surrender.
     
    It is my best fit theory.
     
    Uhh, no, it's not your "best fit theory". For it to be your best fit theory, what that would mean is that you took various competing theories of the event and you compared them and decided which one best fit the facts and it turned out to be this one.

    That is quite obviously not what happened. This is simply the theory of events that you were taught in school and/or by watching the History Channel, say, and you simply believed it. You never compared it to any other theory.

    The same thing with the 9/11 story. You claim that the official story is the "best fit theory" as if you compared it with any other theory and saw that it was what best fit the available facts. But, no, what happened is that they told you in the media that this was what happened and you simply believed it.

    That is why, when I ask you what the evidence is, you are unable to answer. Of course, everybody who has looked into this bullshit story knows there is no evidence for it. None whatsoever. So, obviously it cannot be the "best fit theory". LOL.

    Well, in short, you are a comemierdas, a shit eater. They throw whatever the official bullshit is at you about any deep event and you obediently eat it up. Then you come onto a venue like this and represent that you came to the conclusion that what they told you is true by comparing this with other theories and contrasting whether it fit the facts.... Of course, that isn't what happened. But, of course, that's because, not only are you a shit eater, you are also a complete charlatan, an intellectual fraudster.

    I know this is a harsh characterization but anybody who has observed my exchange knows that it is correct.

    You say this but you propose no other.
     
    Listen, you shit eater. If you say that people committed a crime, the onus is on you to provide proof of that. Well, at least in any serious setting. If you want to go sit on a barstool in a pub and talk shit, fine. But this is a serious venue. At least, at its best, it is.

    Not only are these the ground rules of any serious discussion, that if you say that specific people committed a crime, you have to be able to say what the evidence for this is, it is very basic morality. It's right there in the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not bear false witness. You cannot say these Arabs, Mohammed Atta and the other guy with the indestructible passport, and the rest of these people, committed this crime, and then refuse to outline what the evidence is.

    You say these guys did it. It is up to you to say what the proof is. And if there is no proof, you have none (which you don't) then an honest person (which obviously you are not) must concede that he has no proof.

    You can't ask me to tell you who did it and then provide you proof of that! That is absurd. Things cannot work that way. You say these guys did that. You tell me what the proof is or admit that you have none.

    The damnedest thing about this situation is that these kind of illegitimate tactics are outlined my essay, actually in both essays! So, why you think this sophomoric tactic is going to work with me when I already outlined it in the very essay -- that is a little odd, no?

    You are just a sophist – an empty thinker who has convinced himself that he is clever.
     
    LOL! Project much?

    Look, I cannot waste any more time talking to you. What you have is a totally toxic combination of dishonesty and wilful ignorance, intellectual squalor and outrageous high self-regard.

    The last time round, when I wrote the previous essay, I really felt that I wasted a lot of time responding to worthless assholes -- people like you basically. In particular, there's that WizardOfOz jerkoff. I can't just keep going, answering bad-faithed bullshit because there are legitimate commenters who really want to have a serious discussion and I should be devoting my time to that.

    So, unless you can raise your game massively (and actually I very much doubt you can) you can expect that this is my last response to anything you write.
  109. Blowback terrorism is also hardly a new phenomenon. It is now more common due to mass immigration, easy travel and international communication. It has also been enabled by technology, as have all forms of terrorism.

    Examples of earlier blowback terrorism include:

    Jewish actions against the Romans across the Empire and the Roman servile wars.

    They require dislocated ethnic minorities in substantial numbers with strong current ties to their homeland who now live in an interventionist power that is currently intervening in the minorities’ far off homeland. Wherever that has existed there has been the potential for blowback… That is why the Japanese were interned…

    The problem with the phrase blowback terrorism is not what you propose, Revusky, you prefer to go off into wild hidden hand explanations. It is that it only gives one side agency. People kill us but it is not their fault, it is ours. Essays could be written on this and the same self-absorbed borderline style thinking that currently riddles the West. People do try but again it is hard, but such is the nature of getting to the truth.

    Read More
  110. @Jonathan Revusky

    Victor Suvorov.
     
    Uhh, yeah, I'm aware of Suvorov, but I have to admit that I have never taken the time to read any of those works. I have had it in mind to do so, but it has not quite popped up to the top of my TODO list.

    Now, obviously, if Stalin was in fact planning an attack towards the West, and Hitler simply beat him to the punch, that very much makes one reconsider the conventional interpretation of the whole conflict.

    What is your view on Suvorov's thesis? (I personally simply don't know.)

    You know, taking a step or two back and looking at this, one funny thing about all of this discussion is the absolute asymmetry between WW1 and WW2. Like, I'm pretty sure that if you asked almost anybody (in "polite company" or a cocktail party or whatever) what they think WW2 was about, they would almost all have the same basic explanation: Hitler was this madman who wanted to conquer the world and had to be stopped.

    The Roger Rabbit narrative explanation, basically.

    BUT.... if you asked them what WW1 was about, they would just look at you blankly. I remember vaguely how it was presented in school in North America, and it was kind of like... some Archduke dude gets whacked in a place called Sarajevo and then through some chain of events, everybody starts killing each other for the next four years. Is that a very satisfactory explanation??? So I say that if you ask anybody what that war was really about, people would just shrug their shoulders.

    But then WW2, everybody thinks they know what that was about! So, what I did in this article is I just lay out certain facts, and hint that the conventional explanation of key aspects of WW2 is probably not true. And all these people who think they are experts on WW2 come out of the woodwork, getting very strident and insulting with me. (I'm not complaining, I wasn't born yesterday, so I anticipated it!)

    And, you know, actually, I didn't so much offer any explanation of anything as just pose a key question: Why did the U.S. and Britain bend over backwards to back Stalin? People are suggesting that my asking that question necessarily implies that I am supposed to know the answer! And you get weird shit. Somebody said that Britain stayed in the war against Germany because she was getting bombed by Germany. It didn't occur to this person that Britain was getting bombed by Germany precisely because she chose to stay in the war! Reversal of cause and effect! Typical TITT stuff LOL!

    You see, that's also a funny one because you look at the timeline and you see something very strange, no? I mean, France capitulates on 22 June 1940, and operation Barbarossa begins exactly a year later. So, for an entire year, Britain is at war alone with Germany, rejecting every armistice offer, staying in a conflict which they have absolutely no possibility of winning. EXCEPT if either the USA or USSR (OR BOTH of the above) enters the war. Which is what happened, right? 18 months later and Germany is at war simultaneously with both the USA and USSR so the result is not really in doubt. Total reversal. But how could Winnie have known that?

    So obviously, Churchill (or more accurately, Winnie's puppet masters) are fairly sure that Britain's stand alone against Germany is temporary. Otherwise it would be suicidally insane. But how could they know that? Otherwise, they would just sit down with the Germans and work out a peace treaty. Obviously, Churchill must know that Britain will only be alone in this only temporarily, no? But how did he know that? Or maybe he didn't know with certainty, but was gambling, right?

    Of course, you can go back a bit further and ask some very interesting questions. What was that whole phony war, "la drôle de guerre" about? Why did Britain and particularly France declare war on Germany (supposedly to help the Poles) and then sit on their thumbs? What's up with that?

    There is a French leftist historian, Annie Lacroix-Riz, who wrote some stuff about that, and I have to admit I haven't read that either (like Suvorov) but I heard her interviewed once and was intrigued with her interpretation of what happened to France in 1940. I mean, that's another damned thing. Hitler was a veteran of WW1, mostly on the western front, fighting the French. He had quite a bit of respect for the French and really wanted to avoid another western front war. His ambitions were entirely in the east, I think that's clear enough.

    But what is strange is that in the first war, Germany threw everything they could at the French at key moments, and maybe the French came very close to collapse at certain points, but the war remained stalemated for four years. And Hitler lived through that. How could Hitler have anticipated that the French were going to just collapse in 6 weeks? There's that famous photo of him dancing a jig when he got the news. But based on his experience in WW1, there was no way he could have thought that a war with France would be over so fast!

    So the version we get is this thing that the French were these "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" or something, but that's really just a slur, not a serious explanation of anything. And, after all, they took everything the Germans threw at them for 4 years in the previous war...

    I mean, I'm making a point in the essay that when you look at this history with fresh eyes, and you look at the conventional analysis, you see that there are so many aspects that are really just very inadequately explained. But, I think the biggest single case is the going all-out to support Stalin when Hitler turns his attention east. But look what happens here. You ask the question and people of course jump on you. Not that they have a real answer, mind you, but....

    Is it really the case that Churchill basically bankrupted the British Empire in order to stay in the war to save Stalin? It sounds crazy, but if you look at it, that seems to be what happened, no? It really should require a real explanation!

    My apologies. It wasn’t you I was replying to, but to Immigrant from the former USSR.

    Read More
  111. @iffen
    God has truly blessed me with enough years to see this.

    The Japanese Jews what done it!

    No, they were Japanese working for the westerners, in this case for the Jewish House of Rothschild, and the Jewish House of Rothschild itself is working for someone else. You should check it out. You will find the answer even in the Encyclopedia Britannica. But nobody disputes that Jews are criminals. Whenever a chance for material or any other gain present itself, Jews always readily jump on it, without any regards for the morals. You display that behavior yourself right now, defending the notoriously criminal house of Rothschild because you are a Jew. Sam Shama is a Jew too. I can tell you know. I have a nose for such things. >)

    I’ll tell you something else. House of Rothschild didn’t defend you, instead they were helping Hitler, because good Jesuits follow orders. You are not smart you know. Not even close.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    My granny is née Rothschild and always defends me. So you are wrong.


    btw I am fascinated; how did you develop such a keen nose for Jew detection?

    [ Also, I get a cheque from the Fed each month without fail.]

  112. @Kiza
    When I read this point of yours Jonathan, that Churchill and the British were fighting for USSR, I did find it a bit of a stretch, mainly because of the poor benefits of such fighting, not because I would accept any historic dogma. Knowing the British, I would lean towards the belief that they were driven by self-interest and a pompous belief in their eternal empire (despite empty treasury), against the upstart Germans. But your explanation of the Hess story is highly likely - he did appear to have given a chance to the British to bail out of the WW2 and the leadership declined. I wish I knew exactly why. The life-long imprisonment of Hess is another perfect conspiracy theory.

    When I read this point of yours Jonathan, that Churchill and the British were fighting for USSR, I did find it a bit of a stretch, mainly because of the poor benefits of such fighting

    Well, the point I was making was that this was the result of the Anglo-American policy and was even a predictable result, it seems. I did not really mean that Churchill, for example, wanted to turn the USSR into a superpower that controlled most of Europe. However, he, along with Roosevelt of course, embarked on a policy that led to that result.

    I just asked why. So when you refer to the “poor benefits” of such a policy, that’s precisely the question I am posing, right?

    The main point here that I want to make is that the conventional history we are taught in school and on the History Channel simply offers no satisfying answer to such basic questions. It just doesn’t. Yet you have these middlebrow HIQIs coming out of the woodwork now repeating the History Channel narrative telling me in a condescending, pedantic way that I’m the one who doesn’t understand.

    Like, you have the one HIQI telling me that the reason that the U.S. decided to aid the USSR so much is Pearl Harbor. So I point out to him that the aid to the USSR predates the Pearl Harbor attack so Pearl Harbor cannot be the cause. (If A happens and then B happens afterwards, B did not cause A.)

    Before that, another HIQI claimed that the reason that Britain stayed in the war even after the German attack on Russia was because Germany was bombing Britain. It didn’t occur to this person that he had causality reversed, that Germany was bombing Britain precisely because Britain was choosing to stay at war!

    The funny thing about these exchanges is that, by all rights, these points I made, that people had completely reversed the timeline and reversed causality, should be knock-out blows. They demonstrate that the other person’s History Channel Roger Rabbit Narrative history is inadequate, right?

    But no, you whack them up the side of head like that and they don’t really acknowledge that their point was blown out of the water. It does kind of get back to the “Blowhard Tactics” I mention in the essay. Never concede a point…. But obviously, I can’t continue the debate too much more with such people. It is a waste of time, after all.

    But your explanation of the Hess story is highly likely – he did appear to have given a chance to the British to bail out of the WW2 and the leadership declined. I wish I knew exactly why.

    I think the British were told that they could keep their empire and all Hitler wanted was that they not make trouble for him while he was busy smashing the Soviet Union.

    You know, from Hitler’s point of view, Churchill was being utterly unreasonable. In his world view, it was a logical goal of Germany AND France and Britain and the rest of the western countries to want to smash the Soviet Union, get rid of Bolshevism for good. Yet, he, Hitler, was willing to do all the heavy lifting to make it happen. It was Germany that was willing to pay the price for eliminating Bolshevism and the other western countries were essentially free-riding. I’m pretty sure that was his world view.

    As for Britain and the U.S. sending so much aid to the USSR, I look at this and think that this is actually so sutprising that, possibly, Hitler did not anticipate it. I mean, he probably just figured that, at worst, the Anglo-American powers would just stay neutral when he attacked Russia, because he probably thought that they wanted to destroy Bolshevism as much as he did.

    Now, as for the Jewish question, all I’m saying is that this definitely was a significant power block, there is no real doubt about this, and if you want to understand what happened, you can’t just pretend that that power block did not exist! But, obviously, then they get into straw man arguments, pretending that I claimed that said Jewish power block was the sole factor. In all of history even! The other HIQI has constructed the straw-man (to which I have not yet responded) that I am supposed to explain U.S. food aid to North Korea in terms of the Jewish power block! As if I had argued that the Jewish power block explained everything! LOL. Seriously, how is one supposed to respond to such idiocy? (Or should one respond to it?)

    Obviously, what I meant was that the Jewish power block was one factor, and it’s an important enough factor that if you deliberately leave it out (because it’s a taboo) then the resulting explanation is not going to be fully satisfying. When you have to ignore one major aspect of a situation and then construct an explanation that leaves it out, you get what I call Taboo Induced Tortuous Theories, which are TITTs. You end up with explanations that don’t really fit the facts in a satisfactory manner.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carlton Meyer
    Thank you for your polite interaction with readers. Here is one more tool for your work, from my blog:

    U.S. Army Mobilization began in 1938?

    For anyone who still thinks the USA was "surprised" at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 and "thrust" into World War II, read this official U.S. Army document: Highlights of Mobilization, World War II, 1938-1942.

    http://www.history.army.mil/documents/wwii/ww2mob.htm

    Here are some highlights of our "peacetime" Army that in 1938 had just 167,000 active enlisted and 190,000 in the National Guard.

    "These actions of June-September 1940 were designed to produce a 1,000,000-man Army by 1 January 1941 and 1,400,000-man Army by 1 July 1941 (consist, 500,000 RA, 270,000 NG, and 630,000 selectees). In units: 27 Infantry, 4 Armored, 2 Cavalry Divisions, necessary supporting corps, army, and GHQ troops, and 54 combat air groups."

    And just prior to our being "forced" into World War II, lots of construction began:

    "Between summer 1940 and December 1941, provision of 29 reception centers (for receiving and classifying inductees) and 21 replacement training centers."

    "During fiscal 1940-41, about 45 new communities constructed for Army populations of from 10,000 to 63,000; more than half of them on new sites."

    Note that World War II didn't officially begin until Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, yet we started mobilizing for war in 1938!
    , @Kiza
    Thank you very much for in-depth response to my comments and for your consideration for all kinds of opinions here. Maybe this discussion has become a little detailed for my preference of the big picture. Please let me get back to the big picture and please let me explain what I really meant by: all news are lies and all history is lies. My true intention was to establish a starting point when considering events in the near past and the distant past. The starting point is to doubt absolutely everything and increase acceptance only after thinking carefully about it and cross-referencing the available information. The objective is to counter our in-built laziness - it is easy to believe (or say I do not care) then to question and check. Another way to say the same is: question absolutely everything (RT stole my motto), take nothing on trust, the more it comes as established/establishment truth believe it not more then less, because authority has been the biggest con in the history of humanity (authority is the best platform for lying ever invented). Give benefit of doubt to every conspiracy theory before making up your mind. Never, ever follow the herd, it will almost always be wrong.

    I do have a bit of an issue with your concept of HIQI. The problem is that IQ is measured by certain tests and I am not aware that credulity has ever been included into any IQ tests. Further, to my knowledge, no correlation has ever been proven between IQ level and preparedness to believe in BS served. Therefore HIQI would not be a scientific descriptor, but as a concept it is illustrative of a paradox that someone who does IQ tests well and/or is highly educated could fail miserably in detecting even the BS blatantly obvious to a lower IQ/education individual. Yet, if I were younger, I would love to do such research myself, to try to scientifically establish any possible correlation between other types of measurable intelligence, education and credulity (or its reverse the BS detection). Also, it would be absolutely fascinating to establish if education increases credulity and in which countries (it would not be terribly innovative to suspect that education increases credulity because education emphasizes conformity). My starting theory would be that IQ, education level and credulity are directly correlated (the higher the IQ and the level of education, the lower BS detection capacity).

  113. @Jonathan Revusky

    When I read this point of yours Jonathan, that Churchill and the British were fighting for USSR, I did find it a bit of a stretch, mainly because of the poor benefits of such fighting
     
    Well, the point I was making was that this was the result of the Anglo-American policy and was even a predictable result, it seems. I did not really mean that Churchill, for example, wanted to turn the USSR into a superpower that controlled most of Europe. However, he, along with Roosevelt of course, embarked on a policy that led to that result.

    I just asked why. So when you refer to the "poor benefits" of such a policy, that's precisely the question I am posing, right?

    The main point here that I want to make is that the conventional history we are taught in school and on the History Channel simply offers no satisfying answer to such basic questions. It just doesn't. Yet you have these middlebrow HIQIs coming out of the woodwork now repeating the History Channel narrative telling me in a condescending, pedantic way that I'm the one who doesn't understand.

    Like, you have the one HIQI telling me that the reason that the U.S. decided to aid the USSR so much is Pearl Harbor. So I point out to him that the aid to the USSR predates the Pearl Harbor attack so Pearl Harbor cannot be the cause. (If A happens and then B happens afterwards, B did not cause A.)

    Before that, another HIQI claimed that the reason that Britain stayed in the war even after the German attack on Russia was because Germany was bombing Britain. It didn't occur to this person that he had causality reversed, that Germany was bombing Britain precisely because Britain was choosing to stay at war!

    The funny thing about these exchanges is that, by all rights, these points I made, that people had completely reversed the timeline and reversed causality, should be knock-out blows. They demonstrate that the other person's History Channel Roger Rabbit Narrative history is inadequate, right?

    But no, you whack them up the side of head like that and they don't really acknowledge that their point was blown out of the water. It does kind of get back to the "Blowhard Tactics" I mention in the essay. Never concede a point.... But obviously, I can't continue the debate too much more with such people. It is a waste of time, after all.

    But your explanation of the Hess story is highly likely – he did appear to have given a chance to the British to bail out of the WW2 and the leadership declined. I wish I knew exactly why.
     
    I think the British were told that they could keep their empire and all Hitler wanted was that they not make trouble for him while he was busy smashing the Soviet Union.

    You know, from Hitler's point of view, Churchill was being utterly unreasonable. In his world view, it was a logical goal of Germany AND France and Britain and the rest of the western countries to want to smash the Soviet Union, get rid of Bolshevism for good. Yet, he, Hitler, was willing to do all the heavy lifting to make it happen. It was Germany that was willing to pay the price for eliminating Bolshevism and the other western countries were essentially free-riding. I'm pretty sure that was his world view.

    As for Britain and the U.S. sending so much aid to the USSR, I look at this and think that this is actually so sutprising that, possibly, Hitler did not anticipate it. I mean, he probably just figured that, at worst, the Anglo-American powers would just stay neutral when he attacked Russia, because he probably thought that they wanted to destroy Bolshevism as much as he did.

    Now, as for the Jewish question, all I'm saying is that this definitely was a significant power block, there is no real doubt about this, and if you want to understand what happened, you can't just pretend that that power block did not exist! But, obviously, then they get into straw man arguments, pretending that I claimed that said Jewish power block was the sole factor. In all of history even! The other HIQI has constructed the straw-man (to which I have not yet responded) that I am supposed to explain U.S. food aid to North Korea in terms of the Jewish power block! As if I had argued that the Jewish power block explained everything! LOL. Seriously, how is one supposed to respond to such idiocy? (Or should one respond to it?)

    Obviously, what I meant was that the Jewish power block was one factor, and it's an important enough factor that if you deliberately leave it out (because it's a taboo) then the resulting explanation is not going to be fully satisfying. When you have to ignore one major aspect of a situation and then construct an explanation that leaves it out, you get what I call Taboo Induced Tortuous Theories, which are TITTs. You end up with explanations that don't really fit the facts in a satisfactory manner.

    Thank you for your polite interaction with readers. Here is one more tool for your work, from my blog:

    U.S. Army Mobilization began in 1938?

    For anyone who still thinks the USA was “surprised” at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 and “thrust” into World War II, read this official U.S. Army document: Highlights of Mobilization, World War II, 1938-1942.

    http://www.history.army.mil/documents/wwii/ww2mob.htm

    Here are some highlights of our “peacetime” Army that in 1938 had just 167,000 active enlisted and 190,000 in the National Guard.

    “These actions of June-September 1940 were designed to produce a 1,000,000-man Army by 1 January 1941 and 1,400,000-man Army by 1 July 1941 (consist, 500,000 RA, 270,000 NG, and 630,000 selectees). In units: 27 Infantry, 4 Armored, 2 Cavalry Divisions, necessary supporting corps, army, and GHQ troops, and 54 combat air groups.”

    And just prior to our being “forced” into World War II, lots of construction began:

    “Between summer 1940 and December 1941, provision of 29 reception centers (for receiving and classifying inductees) and 21 replacement training centers.”

    “During fiscal 1940-41, about 45 new communities constructed for Army populations of from 10,000 to 63,000; more than half of them on new sites.”

    Note that World War II didn’t officially begin until Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, yet we started mobilizing for war in 1938!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Thank you for your polite interaction with readers
     
    Well, I'm very interested in discussing some of these ideas. That really was a lot of the motivation to write this essay as well as the previous one.

    It's funny, as for politeness, today I really took the proverbial gloves with a couple of people. One thing is that, in the discussion that developed after my earlier essay, I really ended up feeling that I had wasted too much time talking to people who were... assholes. Like Wizard of Oz and people of that ilk. I really want to avoid getting into that time sink and mostly just concentrate on discussion with people like you and others, who really are here to discuss ideas honestly.

    Note that World War II didn’t officially begin until Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, yet we started mobilizing for war in 1938!
     
    Well, surely you know, Carlton, all of that was because they attacked us at Pearl Harbor! ;-)

    But, actually, seriously, some of the discussion just in the last few days has caused me to see something more clearly. That is that deep political analysis (as opposed to the superficial received version) almost invariably involves reversals of cause and effect.

    So, like with 9/11, the typical American is told (and firmly believes) that the desire to go to war in Afghanistan and elsewhere was caused by 9/11, when in reality, 9/11 happened because of the desire (of certain elements...) to get into these wars.

    But it doesn't start there. I mean, you have the U.S.S. Maine blowing up in Havana Harbor in 1898 and it's like we went to war with Spain because this ship was blown up in Havana Harbor. But no, of course not! The ship was blown up in Havana Harbor because, again, a certain faction, wanted their splendid little war with Spain.

    So, probably just about any event that was used to get the country into a war involves similar reversal of cause and effect in the narrative.

    I guess that's why you get these glitches in people's explanations, when they try to tell you that some event that happened after something else is the cause of the earlier event! You're bound to get that when you have the inversion of cause and effect, no?

    In a way, it can be comical. It's as if somebody sincerely believed that a woman's sudden interest in baby clothes and strollers is what causes her to get pregnant and have a baby!
  114. @Max Payne
    Eh. The whole WTC7 thing isn't as shady as it appears.

    CIA, along with DoD and IRS had rented some offices in that building. Source:

    www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/05/archive/main316911.shtml

    Once the attack occurred I'm sure the CIA officers there assumed the nation was under some military assault and started erasing data and burning files like mad (this is 2001, before the age of 'smartphones' in which paper still meant something). Due to the completely incompetent action of the CIA (heh) the fire got out of control, and the owner/lease holder allowed the fire department to collapse the building.

    Source (Larry Silverstein, lease owner):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk

    That's it. That's why it wasn't mentioned. It had nothing to do with the attacks and more with CIA overreaction.

    WTC 7 collapsed so soon after the other two buildings that there wouldn’t have been time to rig it with explosives on the fly for a proper controlled demolition. The building had to have been primed beforehand.

    Since most of the truther theories I am familiar with indict the deep state and Larry Silversteen (who owned all three buildings) as part of the plot, this could well just be another cover story cooked up after the fact. It seems likely that they were expecting a third plane to hit WTC 7, but that it crashed in a farm field in Pennsylvania. This would have left them with little choice but to bring it down, as the building was now on fire (owing to the débris from the other buildings, which had just collapsed) and was already rigged with explosives in preparation for the third plane. They had to get rid of the evidence, rather than just let it sit there until the NYFD found it.

    Read More
  115. Kiza says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    When I read this point of yours Jonathan, that Churchill and the British were fighting for USSR, I did find it a bit of a stretch, mainly because of the poor benefits of such fighting
     
    Well, the point I was making was that this was the result of the Anglo-American policy and was even a predictable result, it seems. I did not really mean that Churchill, for example, wanted to turn the USSR into a superpower that controlled most of Europe. However, he, along with Roosevelt of course, embarked on a policy that led to that result.

    I just asked why. So when you refer to the "poor benefits" of such a policy, that's precisely the question I am posing, right?

    The main point here that I want to make is that the conventional history we are taught in school and on the History Channel simply offers no satisfying answer to such basic questions. It just doesn't. Yet you have these middlebrow HIQIs coming out of the woodwork now repeating the History Channel narrative telling me in a condescending, pedantic way that I'm the one who doesn't understand.

    Like, you have the one HIQI telling me that the reason that the U.S. decided to aid the USSR so much is Pearl Harbor. So I point out to him that the aid to the USSR predates the Pearl Harbor attack so Pearl Harbor cannot be the cause. (If A happens and then B happens afterwards, B did not cause A.)

    Before that, another HIQI claimed that the reason that Britain stayed in the war even after the German attack on Russia was because Germany was bombing Britain. It didn't occur to this person that he had causality reversed, that Germany was bombing Britain precisely because Britain was choosing to stay at war!

    The funny thing about these exchanges is that, by all rights, these points I made, that people had completely reversed the timeline and reversed causality, should be knock-out blows. They demonstrate that the other person's History Channel Roger Rabbit Narrative history is inadequate, right?

    But no, you whack them up the side of head like that and they don't really acknowledge that their point was blown out of the water. It does kind of get back to the "Blowhard Tactics" I mention in the essay. Never concede a point.... But obviously, I can't continue the debate too much more with such people. It is a waste of time, after all.

    But your explanation of the Hess story is highly likely – he did appear to have given a chance to the British to bail out of the WW2 and the leadership declined. I wish I knew exactly why.
     
    I think the British were told that they could keep their empire and all Hitler wanted was that they not make trouble for him while he was busy smashing the Soviet Union.

    You know, from Hitler's point of view, Churchill was being utterly unreasonable. In his world view, it was a logical goal of Germany AND France and Britain and the rest of the western countries to want to smash the Soviet Union, get rid of Bolshevism for good. Yet, he, Hitler, was willing to do all the heavy lifting to make it happen. It was Germany that was willing to pay the price for eliminating Bolshevism and the other western countries were essentially free-riding. I'm pretty sure that was his world view.

    As for Britain and the U.S. sending so much aid to the USSR, I look at this and think that this is actually so sutprising that, possibly, Hitler did not anticipate it. I mean, he probably just figured that, at worst, the Anglo-American powers would just stay neutral when he attacked Russia, because he probably thought that they wanted to destroy Bolshevism as much as he did.

    Now, as for the Jewish question, all I'm saying is that this definitely was a significant power block, there is no real doubt about this, and if you want to understand what happened, you can't just pretend that that power block did not exist! But, obviously, then they get into straw man arguments, pretending that I claimed that said Jewish power block was the sole factor. In all of history even! The other HIQI has constructed the straw-man (to which I have not yet responded) that I am supposed to explain U.S. food aid to North Korea in terms of the Jewish power block! As if I had argued that the Jewish power block explained everything! LOL. Seriously, how is one supposed to respond to such idiocy? (Or should one respond to it?)

    Obviously, what I meant was that the Jewish power block was one factor, and it's an important enough factor that if you deliberately leave it out (because it's a taboo) then the resulting explanation is not going to be fully satisfying. When you have to ignore one major aspect of a situation and then construct an explanation that leaves it out, you get what I call Taboo Induced Tortuous Theories, which are TITTs. You end up with explanations that don't really fit the facts in a satisfactory manner.

    Thank you very much for in-depth response to my comments and for your consideration for all kinds of opinions here. Maybe this discussion has become a little detailed for my preference of the big picture. Please let me get back to the big picture and please let me explain what I really meant by: all news are lies and all history is lies. My true intention was to establish a starting point when considering events in the near past and the distant past. The starting point is to doubt absolutely everything and increase acceptance only after thinking carefully about it and cross-referencing the available information. The objective is to counter our in-built laziness – it is easy to believe (or say I do not care) then to question and check. Another way to say the same is: question absolutely everything (RT stole my motto), take nothing on trust, the more it comes as established/establishment truth believe it not more then less, because authority has been the biggest con in the history of humanity (authority is the best platform for lying ever invented). Give benefit of doubt to every conspiracy theory before making up your mind. Never, ever follow the herd, it will almost always be wrong.

    I do have a bit of an issue with your concept of HIQI. The problem is that IQ is measured by certain tests and I am not aware that credulity has ever been included into any IQ tests. Further, to my knowledge, no correlation has ever been proven between IQ level and preparedness to believe in BS served. Therefore HIQI would not be a scientific descriptor, but as a concept it is illustrative of a paradox that someone who does IQ tests well and/or is highly educated could fail miserably in detecting even the BS blatantly obvious to a lower IQ/education individual. Yet, if I were younger, I would love to do such research myself, to try to scientifically establish any possible correlation between other types of measurable intelligence, education and credulity (or its reverse the BS detection). Also, it would be absolutely fascinating to establish if education increases credulity and in which countries (it would not be terribly innovative to suspect that education increases credulity because education emphasizes conformity). My starting theory would be that IQ, education level and credulity are directly correlated (the higher the IQ and the level of education, the lower BS detection capacity).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Where I come from there is even a common concept and a name for this, it is called peasant thinking or peasant logic: a person toiling the fields, who never does any intellectual work, can understand some things better than a celebrated member of national academia. This is commonly the situation with BS detection. In other words, a simple person can be more difficult to sucker in than someone with intellectual pretensions. This is commonly associated with lots of clean air, lots of physical exercise and very healthy natural food.
  116. Kiza says:
    @Kiza
    Thank you very much for in-depth response to my comments and for your consideration for all kinds of opinions here. Maybe this discussion has become a little detailed for my preference of the big picture. Please let me get back to the big picture and please let me explain what I really meant by: all news are lies and all history is lies. My true intention was to establish a starting point when considering events in the near past and the distant past. The starting point is to doubt absolutely everything and increase acceptance only after thinking carefully about it and cross-referencing the available information. The objective is to counter our in-built laziness - it is easy to believe (or say I do not care) then to question and check. Another way to say the same is: question absolutely everything (RT stole my motto), take nothing on trust, the more it comes as established/establishment truth believe it not more then less, because authority has been the biggest con in the history of humanity (authority is the best platform for lying ever invented). Give benefit of doubt to every conspiracy theory before making up your mind. Never, ever follow the herd, it will almost always be wrong.

    I do have a bit of an issue with your concept of HIQI. The problem is that IQ is measured by certain tests and I am not aware that credulity has ever been included into any IQ tests. Further, to my knowledge, no correlation has ever been proven between IQ level and preparedness to believe in BS served. Therefore HIQI would not be a scientific descriptor, but as a concept it is illustrative of a paradox that someone who does IQ tests well and/or is highly educated could fail miserably in detecting even the BS blatantly obvious to a lower IQ/education individual. Yet, if I were younger, I would love to do such research myself, to try to scientifically establish any possible correlation between other types of measurable intelligence, education and credulity (or its reverse the BS detection). Also, it would be absolutely fascinating to establish if education increases credulity and in which countries (it would not be terribly innovative to suspect that education increases credulity because education emphasizes conformity). My starting theory would be that IQ, education level and credulity are directly correlated (the higher the IQ and the level of education, the lower BS detection capacity).

    Where I come from there is even a common concept and a name for this, it is called peasant thinking or peasant logic: a person toiling the fields, who never does any intellectual work, can understand some things better than a celebrated member of national academia. This is commonly the situation with BS detection. In other words, a simple person can be more difficult to sucker in than someone with intellectual pretensions. This is commonly associated with lots of clean air, lots of physical exercise and very healthy natural food.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "peasant thinking ", "This is commonly associated with lots of clean air, lots of physical exercise and very healthy natural food"

    I think that owning a little plot of land and being self sufficient is a much bigger factor. French revolutionary knew it very well (Vendee massacres) and Bolsheviks knew it very well (kulaks destruction).

    The war on illiteracy was also a factor. It is harder to deliver propaganda to illiterates.
  117. Sam Shama says:
    @Kiza
    Sam, what you call the friendly fire I perceive to be just friendly criticism. Jonathan is an initiator of the discussion and we are his contributors by way of criticism. That is a lively intellectual debate that unz.com offers, nothing sinister in it unless you want to see something sinister. There are also unfriendly critics - those who dismiss almost all of his essay and stick to the established truths (or establishment truths). What to write about those?

    Point taken [a little ribbing never hurt anyone]. Look at #111 [and it precedent] and #54 [and it's antecedent]

    Read More
  118. utu says:

    “the higher the IQ and the level of education, the lower BS detection capacity” – would this imply that high IQ society is also hight trust level society while low IQ society is also low trust? Is it possible that Tortuous Theories theories require high IQ to formulate and hold while low IQ people just can not get them and thus they can detect the BS.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    I will take your challenge seriously.

    Would this imply that high IQ society is also high trust level society while low IQ society is also low trust?
     
    You are mixing trust and credulity big time. But even if I substitute credulity into your question, I would not be able to answer because your are extending personal traits onto the whole societies. But, I have once tried to establish another related concept across nations: Index of National Brainwashedness (sorry, had to create a new word), made up of two components - how much the national media lie and how much the people are ready to believe them. The leader was US, followed by Japan, then Canada and Australia and so on. The Europeans were at the bottom. This ranking was because of the extreme intensity of lying in the US MSM over the population of medium credulity, Japanese medium lying over the population of extreme credulity, and so on. The Europeans tend to be skeptical no matter how intensive the lying, they tend to be anti-BS inoculated. This is non-empirical, it is pure concept.

    Is it possible that Tortuous Theories theories require high IQ to formulate and hold while low IQ people just can not get them and thus they can detect the BS.
     
    I believe that such correlation does exist, the establishment BS tends to be targeted at and adjusted to a specific audience. If one cannot understand it, one cannot be suckered in. But do low IQ people even matter? You are aware that NSA openly states that if you are not electronic, you are not worth spying on, right? Then, I am sure that Propaganda Central considers low IQ people inconsequential and irrelevant.

    I am really not keen on Jonathan's correlation between IQ and credulity, I prefer to deal with education versus credulity, because such correlation should be much easier to establish. Education trains us to believe authority.

  119. Sam Shama says:
    @Khan Bodin
    No, they were Japanese working for the westerners, in this case for the Jewish House of Rothschild, and the Jewish House of Rothschild itself is working for someone else. You should check it out. You will find the answer even in the Encyclopedia Britannica. But nobody disputes that Jews are criminals. Whenever a chance for material or any other gain present itself, Jews always readily jump on it, without any regards for the morals. You display that behavior yourself right now, defending the notoriously criminal house of Rothschild because you are a Jew. Sam Shama is a Jew too. I can tell you know. I have a nose for such things. >)

    I'll tell you something else. House of Rothschild didn't defend you, instead they were helping Hitler, because good Jesuits follow orders. You are not smart you know. Not even close.

    My granny is née Rothschild and always defends me. So you are wrong.

    btw I am fascinated; how did you develop such a keen nose for Jew detection?

    [ Also, I get a cheque from the Fed each month without fail.]

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    btw I am fascinated; how did you develop such a keen nose for Jew detection?

    Hi Sam,

    It is not rocket science – about the third comment defending some Big Jew lie – the Little Jew exposes himself. Defend the IDF, AIPAC, the Fed, the Rothschilds – it is easy.

    It is colloquially called J-dar.

    Your welcome --- Art

    p.s. No p.s. this time.

  120. utu says:
    @Kiza
    Where I come from there is even a common concept and a name for this, it is called peasant thinking or peasant logic: a person toiling the fields, who never does any intellectual work, can understand some things better than a celebrated member of national academia. This is commonly the situation with BS detection. In other words, a simple person can be more difficult to sucker in than someone with intellectual pretensions. This is commonly associated with lots of clean air, lots of physical exercise and very healthy natural food.

    “peasant thinking “, “This is commonly associated with lots of clean air, lots of physical exercise and very healthy natural food”

    I think that owning a little plot of land and being self sufficient is a much bigger factor. French revolutionary knew it very well (Vendee massacres) and Bolsheviks knew it very well (kulaks destruction).

    The war on illiteracy was also a factor. It is harder to deliver propaganda to illiterates.

    Read More
  121. Kiza says:
    @utu
    "the higher the IQ and the level of education, the lower BS detection capacity" - would this imply that high IQ society is also hight trust level society while low IQ society is also low trust? Is it possible that Tortuous Theories theories require high IQ to formulate and hold while low IQ people just can not get them and thus they can detect the BS.

    I will take your challenge seriously.

    Would this imply that high IQ society is also high trust level society while low IQ society is also low trust?

    You are mixing trust and credulity big time. But even if I substitute credulity into your question, I would not be able to answer because your are extending personal traits onto the whole societies. But, I have once tried to establish another related concept across nations: Index of National Brainwashedness (sorry, had to create a new word), made up of two components – how much the national media lie and how much the people are ready to believe them. The leader was US, followed by Japan, then Canada and Australia and so on. The Europeans were at the bottom. This ranking was because of the extreme intensity of lying in the US MSM over the population of medium credulity, Japanese medium lying over the population of extreme credulity, and so on. The Europeans tend to be skeptical no matter how intensive the lying, they tend to be anti-BS inoculated. This is non-empirical, it is pure concept.

    Is it possible that Tortuous Theories theories require high IQ to formulate and hold while low IQ people just can not get them and thus they can detect the BS.

    I believe that such correlation does exist, the establishment BS tends to be targeted at and adjusted to a specific audience. If one cannot understand it, one cannot be suckered in. But do low IQ people even matter? You are aware that NSA openly states that if you are not electronic, you are not worth spying on, right? Then, I am sure that Propaganda Central considers low IQ people inconsequential and irrelevant.

    I am really not keen on Jonathan’s correlation between IQ and credulity, I prefer to deal with education versus credulity, because such correlation should be much easier to establish. Education trains us to believe authority.

    Read More
  122. Art says:
    @Sam Shama
    My granny is née Rothschild and always defends me. So you are wrong.


    btw I am fascinated; how did you develop such a keen nose for Jew detection?

    [ Also, I get a cheque from the Fed each month without fail.]

    btw I am fascinated; how did you develop such a keen nose for Jew detection?

    Hi Sam,

    It is not rocket science – about the third comment defending some Big Jew lie – the Little Jew exposes himself. Defend the IDF, AIPAC, the Fed, the Rothschilds – it is easy.

    It is colloquially called J-dar.

    Your welcome — Art

    p.s. No p.s. this time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama

    ....defending some Big Jew lie – the Little Jew exposes himself. Defend the IDF, AIPAC, the Fed, the Rothschilds – it is easy.
     
    Oh hello little art, couldn't resist that could you?

    Little jew, you forgot the biggest Big Jew lie, you know the lie you live every day, the little book you pray with every day, what do you call it now, the new testament?

    p.s. how forgetful of you!

    p.p.s. don't mention it.
  123. Sam Shama says:
    @Art
    btw I am fascinated; how did you develop such a keen nose for Jew detection?

    Hi Sam,

    It is not rocket science – about the third comment defending some Big Jew lie – the Little Jew exposes himself. Defend the IDF, AIPAC, the Fed, the Rothschilds – it is easy.

    It is colloquially called J-dar.

    Your welcome --- Art

    p.s. No p.s. this time.

    .defending some Big Jew lie – the Little Jew exposes himself. Defend the IDF, AIPAC, the Fed, the Rothschilds – it is easy.

    Oh hello little art, couldn’t resist that could you?

    Little jew, you forgot the biggest Big Jew lie, you know the lie you live every day, the little book you pray with every day, what do you call it now, the new testament?

    p.s. how forgetful of you!

    p.p.s. don’t mention it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    Sam, sometimes I'm a simple-minded guy and reason in a simplistic way. My reasoning is that the purpose of this comments section is to discuss the article -- you know, that text up top there.

    I would request that, if you don't have any comment that is even remotely related to the article I wrote, please just refrain from writing anything. I have no moderation ability, so it's just a request. But I think it's a reasonable one.
    , @Art
    Little jew, you forgot the biggest Big Jew lie, you know the lie you live every day, the little book you pray with every day, what do you call it now, the new testament?

    Sam - what – you cannot use the “J” word – you cannot say “Jesus?” The greatest Jew to have ever lived and you are afraid to use his name – my my - sorry for you.

    Yes, Jesus is my main man – my philosopher of choice. His words are NOT to the high and mighty that you so venerate – but to everyday people like me. You celebrate the power of the Jew to propagandize and control societies through lies. Guess what Sam – good and idealism is also powerful. Look at Christian Western culture.

    Look at these words: Blessed are the peace makers – live by the sword, die by the sword - forgive them father for they know not what they do – the truth will set you free – love your neighbor as you love yourself. How can anyone go wrong following those ideals? The beauty of Christian idealism is that we do not have to achieve these ideals 100% of the time. We can fail sometimes and still progress. Think about it - how great is that?

    Thanks for this opportunity to explain Christianity to you ----- Art

    p.s. For your edification “Christ” is a Greek name – it means “the anointed one.” Europeans found value in Jesus and his words – not so the Jew people. Europeans gave him the name Jesus Christ. Unlike Judaism, Christianity evolved.

    p.s. Christianity is no longer a Jew religion.

    p.s. Having to carry the Old Testament on our back is a real burden.
  124. @geokat62

    The “Blowback” theory of terrorism

    At this point in time, the term “blowback” seems to have gone from being internal CIA jargon to being a sort of shibboleth of the left-liberal intelligentsia. The basic idea is that the major terrorist events of recent history, such as 9/11 or 7/7 in London or the recent events in Paris and Brussels, are a natural (yet unintended) result of the brutal policies of Western governments in far off (largely Muslim) countries. Anybody listening to these people would surely conclude that this is a well established phenomenon. But what is odd is that when you step back and look at this with ample historical perspective, the whole concept looks pretty dubious.
     

    I guess according to you, Chalmers Johnson, the author of Blowback, was part of the left-liberal intelligentsia? Here's what wiki has to say about his left-leaning ways:

    A long-time Cold Warrior, he applauded the dissolution of the Soviet Union: "I was a cold warrior. There's no doubt about that. I believed the Soviet Union was a genuine menace. I still think so."
     
    For those who've never heard of Chalmers Johnson, he was an American author who wrote numerous books including three that examined the consequences of American Empire: Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis. Here's an excerpt from his introduction to Blowback, the authoritative book on this "dubious concept":

    This book is a guide to some of the policies during and after the Cold War that generated, and continue to generate, blowback—a term the CIA invented to describe the likelihood that our covert operations in other people’s countries would result in retaliations against Americans, civilian and military, at home and abroad. Blowback was first published in the spring of 2000, some eighteen months before 9/11. My intention in writing it was to warn my fellow Americans about the nature and conduct of U.S. foreign policy over the previous half-century, focusing particularly on the period after the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991. I argued that many aspects of what the American government had done around the world virtually invited retaliatory attacks from nations and peoples on the receiving end. I did not predict the events of 9/11, but I did clearly state that acts of retaliation were coming and should be anticipated. “World politics in the twenty-first century,” I wrote, “will in all likelihood be driven primarily by blowback from the second half of the twentieth century—that is, from the unintended consequences of the Cold War and the crucial American decision to maintain a Cold War posture in a post–Cold War world.”

    The Wages of Imperialism
    Since 9/11, the number of significant terrorist incidents has grown and increased in intensity. These include the attempt on December 22, 2001, by Richard Reid, a British citizen, to blow up a Miami-bound jet using an explosive device hidden in his shoe; the bombing on October 12, 2002, of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia, killing 202 vacationers, most of them Australians; the May 13, 2003, explosions at three residential compounds and the offices of an American defense contractor in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; the killings three days later, on May 16, 2003, of some 33 people at a restaurant and Jewish community center in Casablanca, Morocco; the use of a car bomb on August 5, 2003, to attack the new Marriott Hotel, a symbol of American imperialism, in Jakarta, the Indonesian capital; the deaths of at least 19 people in an explosion at the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad, August 7, 2003; and the blowing up of the United Nations compound in Baghdad on August 19, 2003, killing Sergio Vieira de Mello, the secretary general’s special representative, and many others. There have also been numerous assassinations of American officials and business people around the world and 184 American service personnel died in Iraq in the six months since May 1, 2003, when President Bush ostentatiously declared that the war was over.
    Beyond terrorism, the danger I foresee is that we are embarked on a path not so dissimilar from that of the former Soviet Union a little more than a decade ago. It collapsed for three reasons—internal economic contradictions, imperial overstretch, and an inability to reform. In every sense, we were by far the wealthier of the two Cold War superpowers, so it will certainly take longer for similar afflictions to do their work. But it is nowhere written that the United States, in its guise as an empire dominating the world, must go on forever. The blowback from the second half of the twentieth century has only just begun.
     

    While you might think you've debunked the blowback theory of terrorism, think again.

    Senator Lloyd Bentsen once said to Senator Dan Quayle, "you're no Jack Kennedy" and the same could be said of you, "you're no Chalmers Johnson."

    I guess according to you, Chalmers Johnson, the author of Blowback, was part of the left-liberal intelligentsia? Here’s what wiki has to say about his left-leaning ways:

    I don’t know all that much about the late Chalmers Johnson. My impression actually has been that he is kinda… left-liberal wing of the CIA, kind of like Philip Giraldi. But really, where he lies on some left-right spectrum is of no particular importance to me. What matters to me about his work (or any scholar’s) is whether it is truthful.

    Anyway, I’m getting a bit of déjã vu here. What you tend to do is you grab some book and then start waving it around like it’s the holy bible and start quoting the author of the book like the guy is Jesus Christ and demanding that people read this and respond to it. So, previously, it was this Ryan Mackey jerk and your line was: “Have you read all 306 pages of this guy’s brilliant flying pigs treatise?” And then you would copy-paste long extracts from that and demand that people respond to it.

    Now, instead of the Ryan Mackey jerk, it’s this Chalmers Johnson and you’re waving around this book and quoting it. The funny thing is that, even just looking at some of the quoted material you provide, one can see that the whole thing is basically just garbage.

    For starters, it’s a perfect example of the kind of thing I talk about in my article, magic incantations. You say a word and it contains automatic question-begging. Here, it’s “blowback” and the guy simply assumes what he needs to prove. It’s really crap because just look at some of the excerpt here:

    Since 9/11, the number of significant terrorist incidents has grown and increased in intensity. These include the attempt on December 22, 2001, by Richard Reid, a British citizen, to blow up a Miami-bound jet using an explosive device hidden in his shoe;

    In the very excerpt you provide, his first example of “significant terrorist incidents” is this Richard Reid guy, the “shoe bomber”. A guy who gets on a plane with an exploding shoe, but his dastardly plan is stopped in the nick of time. (Surprise, surprise…)

    Exploding fucking shoes…. Jaysus….

    I mean, who wrote the script for this? Like, some guy who was a scriptwriter for Get Smart or something? The dastardly terrorist with his exploding shoes. Sometimes a picture tells a thousand words. Here are some images that come up more or less randomly using google image search of this dastardly terrorist, Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=richard+reid&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjlxZyGqeTMAhXGXBoKHSbMB-MQ_AUIBygB&biw=1280&bih=604#tbm=isch&q=richard+reid+shoe+bomber

    Look at this. (Some of the photos that come up are pictures of the alleged exploding shoe.)

    Now, look, guys, just look at this Richard Reid guy. This is some mentally ill loser who got manipulated somehow into playing some role in some Deep State psy-op hoax. If you believe that this guy had any bomb in his shoe that was remotely capable of taking down an airliner in flight, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

    Also, if you believe that, why does the guy still have his feet? Surely any bomb of any sort would have at least blown his feet off, no? And then you have this underwear bomber some years later, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. He one-ups Richard Reid. He’s got exploding underwear. Or so they say, except tell me one thing, Geo:

    How come Umar is not currently a eunuch?

    It’s true that if you look at the pictures available of Umark Farouk, he does not look as self-evidently deranged as Richard Reid, but… regardless, this is just a total hoax. There was a couple from Michigan who were witnesses to that whole underwear bomber thing and here is what they wrote:

    http://haskellfamily.blogspot.com/2011/09/colossal-deceit-known-as-underwear.html

    This poor fool was apparently somehow in the airport in Amsterdam and didn’t even have his passport (oops!) and somebody escorted him onto the plane.

    Anyway, getting back to Richard Reid, the guy is not even an Arab or a Muslim by birth. He converted in the prison. How did he even get in touch with Al Qaeda anyway? Just look at that story.

    So this Shoe Bomber story is the first example of “Blowback” that your newfound hero, the late Chalmers Johnson, provides us. Like, Al Qaeda pulls off this spectacular 9/11 thing taking down these massive buildings and what is their follow-up plot? Some loon with exploding shoes!

    What Total bullshit.

    and the same could be said of you, “you’re no Chalmers Johnson.”

    Yes, that’s true. Chalmers Johnson is a dead bullshitter and I’m a living truth teller.

    Anyway, Geo, why are you here peddling this pathetic bullshit? There are so many other pages you could go and people there are shit eaters like you who slurp all of it with a spoon, but… you’re in the wrong place here, man.

    Shoe bomber… Underwear bomber…

    How come no bra bomber? Some bitch puts a bomb in her bra and she’s stopped in the nick of time before we have exploding titties!

    And you’d believe that too, man. You are such a pathetic little shit eater, you know that…

    Read More
  125. @Sam Shama

    ....defending some Big Jew lie – the Little Jew exposes himself. Defend the IDF, AIPAC, the Fed, the Rothschilds – it is easy.
     
    Oh hello little art, couldn't resist that could you?

    Little jew, you forgot the biggest Big Jew lie, you know the lie you live every day, the little book you pray with every day, what do you call it now, the new testament?

    p.s. how forgetful of you!

    p.p.s. don't mention it.

    Sam, sometimes I’m a simple-minded guy and reason in a simplistic way. My reasoning is that the purpose of this comments section is to discuss the article — you know, that text up top there.

    I would request that, if you don’t have any comment that is even remotely related to the article I wrote, please just refrain from writing anything. I have no moderation ability, so it’s just a request. But I think it’s a reasonable one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    My reasoning is that the purpose of this comments section is to discuss the article — you know, that text up top there.

    Unicorns can be black, white or brown in color. All unicorns are very fast runners, all can run faster than the fastest thoroughbred. Now you prove to me that unicorns are not fast runners.
    , @Sam Shama
    Ok Jon, I do see your point, and shall therefore, honour your request; no more off topic comments from me.

    In my own defence, I got distracted on account of the fascinating, laser sharp observations of Mr. Khan Bloodin, to say nothing of the equally unmatched insights of our resident professional crusader-cum-quick-wit, Art.

    Back to real work now. Chop chop.

  126. iffen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky
    Sam, sometimes I'm a simple-minded guy and reason in a simplistic way. My reasoning is that the purpose of this comments section is to discuss the article -- you know, that text up top there.

    I would request that, if you don't have any comment that is even remotely related to the article I wrote, please just refrain from writing anything. I have no moderation ability, so it's just a request. But I think it's a reasonable one.

    My reasoning is that the purpose of this comments section is to discuss the article — you know, that text up top there.

    Unicorns can be black, white or brown in color. All unicorns are very fast runners, all can run faster than the fastest thoroughbred. Now you prove to me that unicorns are not fast runners.

    Read More
  127. @Max Payne
    Eh. The whole WTC7 thing isn't as shady as it appears.

    CIA, along with DoD and IRS had rented some offices in that building. Source:

    www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/05/archive/main316911.shtml

    Once the attack occurred I'm sure the CIA officers there assumed the nation was under some military assault and started erasing data and burning files like mad (this is 2001, before the age of 'smartphones' in which paper still meant something). Due to the completely incompetent action of the CIA (heh) the fire got out of control, and the owner/lease holder allowed the fire department to collapse the building.

    Source (Larry Silverstein, lease owner):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk

    That's it. That's why it wasn't mentioned. It had nothing to do with the attacks and more with CIA overreaction.

    Once the attack occurred I’m sure the CIA officers there assumed the nation was under some military assault and started erasing data and burning files like mad…(snip)… to collapse the building

    Max, just out of idle curiosity, is the above your own theory that you came up with yourself or are did you read this somewhere?

    Of course, needless to say, it’s beyond absurd. There is no way to effect the perfectly symmetrical implosion of a steel-framed building by burning a bunch of paper documents. But I was just kinda wondering where this story came from.

    Read More
  128. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky
    Sam, sometimes I'm a simple-minded guy and reason in a simplistic way. My reasoning is that the purpose of this comments section is to discuss the article -- you know, that text up top there.

    I would request that, if you don't have any comment that is even remotely related to the article I wrote, please just refrain from writing anything. I have no moderation ability, so it's just a request. But I think it's a reasonable one.

    Ok Jon, I do see your point, and shall therefore, honour your request; no more off topic comments from me.

    In my own defence, I got distracted on account of the fascinating, laser sharp observations of Mr. Khan Bloodin, to say nothing of the equally unmatched insights of our resident professional crusader-cum-quick-wit, Art.

    Back to real work now. Chop chop.

    Read More
  129. Art says:
    @Sam Shama

    ....defending some Big Jew lie – the Little Jew exposes himself. Defend the IDF, AIPAC, the Fed, the Rothschilds – it is easy.
     
    Oh hello little art, couldn't resist that could you?

    Little jew, you forgot the biggest Big Jew lie, you know the lie you live every day, the little book you pray with every day, what do you call it now, the new testament?

    p.s. how forgetful of you!

    p.p.s. don't mention it.

    Little jew, you forgot the biggest Big Jew lie, you know the lie you live every day, the little book you pray with every day, what do you call it now, the new testament?

    Sam – what – you cannot use the “J” word – you cannot say “Jesus?” The greatest Jew to have ever lived and you are afraid to use his name – my my – sorry for you.

    Yes, Jesus is my main man – my philosopher of choice. His words are NOT to the high and mighty that you so venerate – but to everyday people like me. You celebrate the power of the Jew to propagandize and control societies through lies. Guess what Sam – good and idealism is also powerful. Look at Christian Western culture.

    Look at these words: Blessed are the peace makers – live by the sword, die by the sword – forgive them father for they know not what they do – the truth will set you free – love your neighbor as you love yourself. How can anyone go wrong following those ideals? The beauty of Christian idealism is that we do not have to achieve these ideals 100% of the time. We can fail sometimes and still progress. Think about it – how great is that?

    Thanks for this opportunity to explain Christianity to you —– Art

    p.s. For your edification “Christ” is a Greek name – it means “the anointed one.” Europeans found value in Jesus and his words – not so the Jew people. Europeans gave him the name Jesus Christ. Unlike Judaism, Christianity evolved.

    p.s. Christianity is no longer a Jew religion.

    p.s. Having to carry the Old Testament on our back is a real burden.

    Read More
  130. @This Is Our Home

    The point here is that the way you are framing this is almost certainly a misrepresentation of what really happened. Britain did not continue the war with Germany alone after the fall of France because she was faced with that or surrender.
     
    It is my best fit theory. After all, hubris and price are hardly rare human traits. What's your best fit theory?

    I infer that you mean that the story of the 19 suicidal hijackers, all of it being orchestrated by the bearded religious fanatic from a cave. That is, for you, the “best fitting theory”.

    Well, actually, not only is this NOT the best fitting theory
     
    You say this but you propose no other. You are just a sophist - an empty thinker who has convinced himself that he is clever. People like you have always existed, look it up! Either that or actually propose a best fitting theory and your strongest evidence actually for that theory.

    (This is the second time that you have dodged this question, I will continue to bring it up until you actually address it.)

    The point here is that the way you are framing this is almost certainly a misrepresentation of what really happened. Britain did not continue the war with Germany alone after the fall of France because she was faced with that or surrender.

    It is my best fit theory.

    Uhh, no, it’s not your “best fit theory”. For it to be your best fit theory, what that would mean is that you took various competing theories of the event and you compared them and decided which one best fit the facts and it turned out to be this one.

    That is quite obviously not what happened. This is simply the theory of events that you were taught in school and/or by watching the History Channel, say, and you simply believed it. You never compared it to any other theory.

    The same thing with the 9/11 story. You claim that the official story is the “best fit theory” as if you compared it with any other theory and saw that it was what best fit the available facts. But, no, what happened is that they told you in the media that this was what happened and you simply believed it.

    That is why, when I ask you what the evidence is, you are unable to answer. Of course, everybody who has looked into this bullshit story knows there is no evidence for it. None whatsoever. So, obviously it cannot be the “best fit theory”. LOL.

    Well, in short, you are a comemierdas, a shit eater. They throw whatever the official bullshit is at you about any deep event and you obediently eat it up. Then you come onto a venue like this and represent that you came to the conclusion that what they told you is true by comparing this with other theories and contrasting whether it fit the facts…. Of course, that isn’t what happened. But, of course, that’s because, not only are you a shit eater, you are also a complete charlatan, an intellectual fraudster.

    I know this is a harsh characterization but anybody who has observed my exchange knows that it is correct.

    You say this but you propose no other.

    Listen, you shit eater. If you say that people committed a crime, the onus is on you to provide proof of that. Well, at least in any serious setting. If you want to go sit on a barstool in a pub and talk shit, fine. But this is a serious venue. At least, at its best, it is.

    Not only are these the ground rules of any serious discussion, that if you say that specific people committed a crime, you have to be able to say what the evidence for this is, it is very basic morality. It’s right there in the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not bear false witness. You cannot say these Arabs, Mohammed Atta and the other guy with the indestructible passport, and the rest of these people, committed this crime, and then refuse to outline what the evidence is.

    You say these guys did it. It is up to you to say what the proof is. And if there is no proof, you have none (which you don’t) then an honest person (which obviously you are not) must concede that he has no proof.

    You can’t ask me to tell you who did it and then provide you proof of that! That is absurd. Things cannot work that way. You say these guys did that. You tell me what the proof is or admit that you have none.

    The damnedest thing about this situation is that these kind of illegitimate tactics are outlined my essay, actually in both essays! So, why you think this sophomoric tactic is going to work with me when I already outlined it in the very essay — that is a little odd, no?

    You are just a sophist – an empty thinker who has convinced himself that he is clever.

    LOL! Project much?

    Look, I cannot waste any more time talking to you. What you have is a totally toxic combination of dishonesty and wilful ignorance, intellectual squalor and outrageous high self-regard.

    The last time round, when I wrote the previous essay, I really felt that I wasted a lot of time responding to worthless assholes — people like you basically. In particular, there’s that WizardOfOz jerkoff. I can’t just keep going, answering bad-faithed bullshit because there are legitimate commenters who really want to have a serious discussion and I should be devoting my time to that.

    So, unless you can raise your game massively (and actually I very much doubt you can) you can expect that this is my last response to anything you write.

    Read More
    • Replies: @This Is Our Home
    Unz, why do you host this half-wit here? He cannot even understand high school level epistemology. He would get an F.
  131. @Carlton Meyer
    Thank you for your polite interaction with readers. Here is one more tool for your work, from my blog:

    U.S. Army Mobilization began in 1938?

    For anyone who still thinks the USA was "surprised" at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 and "thrust" into World War II, read this official U.S. Army document: Highlights of Mobilization, World War II, 1938-1942.

    http://www.history.army.mil/documents/wwii/ww2mob.htm

    Here are some highlights of our "peacetime" Army that in 1938 had just 167,000 active enlisted and 190,000 in the National Guard.

    "These actions of June-September 1940 were designed to produce a 1,000,000-man Army by 1 January 1941 and 1,400,000-man Army by 1 July 1941 (consist, 500,000 RA, 270,000 NG, and 630,000 selectees). In units: 27 Infantry, 4 Armored, 2 Cavalry Divisions, necessary supporting corps, army, and GHQ troops, and 54 combat air groups."

    And just prior to our being "forced" into World War II, lots of construction began:

    "Between summer 1940 and December 1941, provision of 29 reception centers (for receiving and classifying inductees) and 21 replacement training centers."

    "During fiscal 1940-41, about 45 new communities constructed for Army populations of from 10,000 to 63,000; more than half of them on new sites."

    Note that World War II didn't officially begin until Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, yet we started mobilizing for war in 1938!

    Thank you for your polite interaction with readers

    Well, I’m very interested in discussing some of these ideas. That really was a lot of the motivation to write this essay as well as the previous one.

    It’s funny, as for politeness, today I really took the proverbial gloves with a couple of people. One thing is that, in the discussion that developed after my earlier essay, I really ended up feeling that I had wasted too much time talking to people who were… assholes. Like Wizard of Oz and people of that ilk. I really want to avoid getting into that time sink and mostly just concentrate on discussion with people like you and others, who really are here to discuss ideas honestly.

    Note that World War II didn’t officially begin until Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, yet we started mobilizing for war in 1938!

    Well, surely you know, Carlton, all of that was because they attacked us at Pearl Harbor! ;-)

    But, actually, seriously, some of the discussion just in the last few days has caused me to see something more clearly. That is that deep political analysis (as opposed to the superficial received version) almost invariably involves reversals of cause and effect.

    So, like with 9/11, the typical American is told (and firmly believes) that the desire to go to war in Afghanistan and elsewhere was caused by 9/11, when in reality, 9/11 happened because of the desire (of certain elements…) to get into these wars.

    But it doesn’t start there. I mean, you have the U.S.S. Maine blowing up in Havana Harbor in 1898 and it’s like we went to war with Spain because this ship was blown up in Havana Harbor. But no, of course not! The ship was blown up in Havana Harbor because, again, a certain faction, wanted their splendid little war with Spain.

    So, probably just about any event that was used to get the country into a war involves similar reversal of cause and effect in the narrative.

    I guess that’s why you get these glitches in people’s explanations, when they try to tell you that some event that happened after something else is the cause of the earlier event! You’re bound to get that when you have the inversion of cause and effect, no?

    In a way, it can be comical. It’s as if somebody sincerely believed that a woman’s sudden interest in baby clothes and strollers is what causes her to get pregnant and have a baby!

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    Exactly right, JR.

    And .....if you want to launch a war aggression, or in this case, multiple wars of aggression....there is NO WAY you could get the American people to budge on that, unless there is some form of "catalyst", to piss us all off.

    Looking back,9-11 was the most perfect catalyst...because it was so shocking...so horrible...and so out of the blue...Americans were blindsided, I know I was.

    On the heels of 9-11, I was pissed off ... and ready to go...I think our President could have summoned a 20 million man army if he needed it.

    I wanted to get the perps and bring em' to justice....we ALL did.

    The last thing on my mind, at the time, was that my government would be willing to lie to me about something like this.

    Its just unthinkable.

    It was only after the curtain was pulled back on a sequence of key fraudulent events used to coax us into Iraq, that I began to step back, and say "What is going on here ?"..."What are these people doing ? "

    But I guess ,by then, the train (as they say) had already left the station....

  132. I am not a cartoon! I live in a Cave Complex with my 10 wives (1 Jewish), my Burro (who carries my dialysis machine), a microbrewery and an espresso bar. The Burro is pooping.
    Can anyone spare a kidney?

    Keep up the good work!

    O5

    Read More
  133. @Jonathan Revusky


    The point here is that the way you are framing this is almost certainly a misrepresentation of what really happened. Britain did not continue the war with Germany alone after the fall of France because she was faced with that or surrender.
     
    It is my best fit theory.
     
    Uhh, no, it's not your "best fit theory". For it to be your best fit theory, what that would mean is that you took various competing theories of the event and you compared them and decided which one best fit the facts and it turned out to be this one.

    That is quite obviously not what happened. This is simply the theory of events that you were taught in school and/or by watching the History Channel, say, and you simply believed it. You never compared it to any other theory.

    The same thing with the 9/11 story. You claim that the official story is the "best fit theory" as if you compared it with any other theory and saw that it was what best fit the available facts. But, no, what happened is that they told you in the media that this was what happened and you simply believed it.

    That is why, when I ask you what the evidence is, you are unable to answer. Of course, everybody who has looked into this bullshit story knows there is no evidence for it. None whatsoever. So, obviously it cannot be the "best fit theory". LOL.

    Well, in short, you are a comemierdas, a shit eater. They throw whatever the official bullshit is at you about any deep event and you obediently eat it up. Then you come onto a venue like this and represent that you came to the conclusion that what they told you is true by comparing this with other theories and contrasting whether it fit the facts.... Of course, that isn't what happened. But, of course, that's because, not only are you a shit eater, you are also a complete charlatan, an intellectual fraudster.

    I know this is a harsh characterization but anybody who has observed my exchange knows that it is correct.

    You say this but you propose no other.
     
    Listen, you shit eater. If you say that people committed a crime, the onus is on you to provide proof of that. Well, at least in any serious setting. If you want to go sit on a barstool in a pub and talk shit, fine. But this is a serious venue. At least, at its best, it is.

    Not only are these the ground rules of any serious discussion, that if you say that specific people committed a crime, you have to be able to say what the evidence for this is, it is very basic morality. It's right there in the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not bear false witness. You cannot say these Arabs, Mohammed Atta and the other guy with the indestructible passport, and the rest of these people, committed this crime, and then refuse to outline what the evidence is.

    You say these guys did it. It is up to you to say what the proof is. And if there is no proof, you have none (which you don't) then an honest person (which obviously you are not) must concede that he has no proof.

    You can't ask me to tell you who did it and then provide you proof of that! That is absurd. Things cannot work that way. You say these guys did that. You tell me what the proof is or admit that you have none.

    The damnedest thing about this situation is that these kind of illegitimate tactics are outlined my essay, actually in both essays! So, why you think this sophomoric tactic is going to work with me when I already outlined it in the very essay -- that is a little odd, no?

    You are just a sophist – an empty thinker who has convinced himself that he is clever.
     
    LOL! Project much?

    Look, I cannot waste any more time talking to you. What you have is a totally toxic combination of dishonesty and wilful ignorance, intellectual squalor and outrageous high self-regard.

    The last time round, when I wrote the previous essay, I really felt that I wasted a lot of time responding to worthless assholes -- people like you basically. In particular, there's that WizardOfOz jerkoff. I can't just keep going, answering bad-faithed bullshit because there are legitimate commenters who really want to have a serious discussion and I should be devoting my time to that.

    So, unless you can raise your game massively (and actually I very much doubt you can) you can expect that this is my last response to anything you write.

    Unz, why do you host this half-wit here? He cannot even understand high school level epistemology. He would get an F.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    He cannot even understand high school level epistemology.
     
    Oh, you've got me now, you dastardly dastard, used that hidden weapon, the big six syllable word.

    EPISTEMOLOGY!

    (WTF? He-pissed-the-mologee??? WTF is a mologee???)

    God damn! (Choking sound) I can't even say the word... help! Can you say epistemology....

    But hey, I can say Egg McMuffin. Can you say Egg McMuffin?

    I mean, c'mon, listen up a sec, you little shit eating bastard. Has it not occurred to you just how out of your depth you are here? I mean, you are a pathetic little wanker who thinks he can wow people by using some big word. Everybody here with a grain of sense knows that you don't really even know what the word means, everybody here sees through you. You're just such a pathetic little shit eater....

    You're like somebody who goes to a high end chess tournament and thinks he's going to get people in the 3 move scholar's mate or something. It's just not going to happen, don't you get it? The first clue might be that I outlined most of the main sophomoric tactics you guys use right in my essays! So why try this stuff on me here?

    You should understand this is the end of the line. There is some initial interaction in which I respond more or less politely to your bullshit and pretend to take you (a little bit) seriously, but then the pretences have to drop and I take the gloves off. Obviously I do because I do not have this pussy-whipped politically correct bullshit ethic that I have to endlessly pretend that I respect people WHEN I DON'T!

    You're tapped out. Your little tricks don't work, you're so far out of your depth. Go troll somewhere else. Get some practice where it's easier and build your skills and then come back and try to troll me, if you want. But this is just such a complete waste of time. You're tapped out, this is the end of the line. So get lost. Fuck off.

    , @PubliusMN
    No, Jonathan is right. You provide no evidence.
    You are epistemologically crippled.
    You give weight to theories because they are official or believed by the masses, when the entire point of the essay is to investigate why people do what you do.
    Wow.
    I've rarely encountered this level of stupidity in adults.
    My 10 year old is more advanced than you by far.
  134. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:

    A fantastic article and achievement! Even better Than RRN post!

    You have analyzed a perplexing thing that has bothered me for many years. Which is why seemingly decently intelligent and educated people cling to obtuse beliefs, and will not be moved. Or if you can maybe get them to consider arguments stemming from a position you derive from BDQ basis, then if the subject gives ground only superficially, and momentarily, it usually turns out to be, really just a kind of obstinacy Judo move… (OJM… ? hehe.)

    Seriously, I don’t see much support being shown among the above masses of comments for your valuable thesis and innovation development of symbols ”gestalts” into shorthand acronyms, which are a serious constructive advance in dealing with the phenomena you so elegantly described.

    So, Jonathan, I hope you will take this great idea much further, so I’m just thinking here… please don’t be lured away from the main theme, by all these enticements to go all around the barn with subterfuges and new as yet unlabeled ruses, because, as I read the comments, damned few showed much understanding of, much less added insight nor… demonstration of enthusiasm to join in the enlightening process, in these Dark times!! They took the Blue pill and they are now subservient.

    If Hans Christian Andersen’s idiot boy, were to appear today, he would be assigned to some reeducation and we know that that might not be much good for his health…nor fitness to be a Fable-story protagonist…

    Read More
  135. @libtard
    @Jonathan Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comments, not just with one posting, but with two: #18 and #20.

    Curiously (or not), you miss the substance of the points I raised and claim them instead to fit your model of reality/truth. When I point out that the conditions for blowback as we know them today did not exist under the old British empire, you turn that around and say that since there was no blowback, it proves your point -- although it does just the opposite. And of course you ignore my allusion to a "deep event" condition, to wit, the "troubles" in Ireland, which eventually did lead to bombings in the British imperial homeland. These were indeed "blowback" events even if nobody ever labeled them as such.

    As to which recent events qualify as "pure" blowback -- a legitimate question -- I have no way of really knowing. I do believe there was at least an element of blowback in every one of the events you listed: 9/11, 7/7, San Bernardino, Paris and Brussels. The degree of involvement of a deep state in any of those events is beyond my ability to fully assess, not because of some taboo (I do think there was deep state involvement), but simply because ironclad conclusive evidence is not currently available.

    As to WW2, even if you did not claim that 22 June 1941 was the start of the war, the selection of that date was hardly innocent. Why select a date at all if it wasn't an attempt to add "hyper-emotionalism" to your argument? If you started with 30 September 1938, with the Munich agreement, where PM Chamberlain allowed German troops to occupy the Sudetenland (in an ill-conceived attempt to get Hitler to attack the USSR), or if you had started with 1 September 1939 with the German invasion of Poland, it would have given your argument a wholly different emotional tenor, and provided a more logical place for understanding the later support given by capitalist governments to the USSR.

    If you really think that Jewish political power was critical to the Lend-Lease agreements with the USSR, when Britain was already at war with Germany for about a year and a half, and Germany was occupying multiple allied countries in Europe, then you need to provide some evidence. Stalin is not generally seen as a friend of the Jewish political elite, so it would seem strange that the latter would want to help the former. But politics, as they say, makes for strange bedfellows. Perhaps you could explain why the US provided North Korea with $1.3 billion in food and energy assistance between 1995 and 2008? Are there any Jews in North Korea?

    On the other hand, I would say tha the evidence is quite clear that Jewish political power is a factor in recent US interventions in the Middle East -- even a major one. Whether that alone is enough to explain the boneheaded American interventions, I am much less sure. There are at least a couple of other lobbies, intertwined in many instances with ZPC, which would need to be taken into account in any serious analysis of these events. If ZPC was the only factor, then presumably Washington would have already attacked Iran rather than signing a treaty with it.

    Where I take sides with /@iffen, who you insulted gratuitously #22, is that reality is not all black and white. There are, at least, 50 shades of grey :) You claim you are neither left or right, only seeking the truth -- which is laudable. But what you have presented is only a model of the truth, and one that I cannot completely hold to. The truth, and the reality you claim to be reclaiming, always manage to escape us somehow.

    I probably cannot reply to every point you are making. I mean, I could, systematically, but I don’t think I’m willing to put in the time. It becomes very time-consuming to reply to somebody who tends to twist things you say in a rather dishonest manner, who is constantly straw-manning. That does seem to be your case, and, really, if you do have the intellectual curiosity to continue the conversation, you will have to raise your level, or you can expect that this is my last response to you.

    First of all, on Ireland proving something, I mean something general, this is rather dubious simply because Ireland is such a special case. Ireland was hardly the typical British colony. For starters, there is no important racial difference between Irish and English such that one could tell them apart. The Irish speak the same language as the English. Also, for all of it (and the Irishmen here can get mad at me, but so be it…) what cultural differences there are are actually quite subtle.

    What this means, of course, is that it is very very easy for Irish people to move about in England without calling too much attention to themselves. On the other hand, it also means that it is orders of magnitude easier for agents of the British State to infiltrate Irish nationalist groups, since infiltrating other sorts of nationalist groups requires linguistic/cultural skills that few Brits possess! (Aside from the basic racial problem!)

    Now, yes, there is a centuries-old problem of sectarian violence between Irish Catholics and anglo-protestants in Ireland. Almost all of that sectarian violence took place in Ireland itself and thus, by any reasonable definition, does not constitute “blowback” anyway. You have to look at IRA bombings that took place in Britain. First of all, there is a wikipedia page listing all of these incidents in Britain and one thing that is striking is how few of them there really are. I think the bloodiest decade of IRA terrorism in all of Britain is something on the order of 30 dead. In a decade. Like 3 people a year or something like that, that’s it. You have a lot of bombs that went off and didn’t hurt anybody but made headline news, but that is…. well… Anyway 3 people whacked i a typical year. Bad if you’re one of those three people, but on a national level, you can say this was always a non-problem.

    Now, the other aspect of this is that, what few incidents there are that you could call blowback, we still haven’t established that they really were. They could perfectly well have been Deep State false flags as well! In fact, in a conversation I had with Kevin Barrett last week where this came up (actually, you can find it on noliesradio.org) Kevin said that this stuff was also false flag. I said I didn’t know. Because I didn’t and don’t. I suspect that you don’t know either really.

    In any case, if whatever happened with the IRA were the only bona fide blowback that the British Empire ever faced, does this not mean that there is something fishy about claiming that “blowback” is this very important general phenomenon? I mean, for many decades, the line was that the sun never set on the British Empire. And it was true. It was a vast collection of territories. And, no, I do not believe there was some huge problem that made blowback logistically difficult. A determined colonial or group of colonial subjects could make their way to London and blow up a building. They just never did.

    No, it is completely clear to me that if blowback were an important general problem, the British Empire should have had a significant blowback problem. This is a simple, common-sense. Again, the onus is on the other side of the debate. If you claim that blowback is this big phenomenon, why did the British Empire not have really any blowback problem to speak of?

    I have a very simple explanation personally, which is that blowback doesn’t really exist!

    If you really think that Jewish political power was critical to the Lend-Lease agreements with the USSR, when Britain was already at war with Germany for about a year and a half, and Germany was occupying multiple allied countries in Europe, then you need to provide some evidence.

    Well, you’ve really got to stop putting words in my mouth. I did not say it was “critical”. I did not say that because I do not claim to know for sure. You will note generally that I am actually quite careful about making such claims. You, however, do not seem to be similarly careful about making claims, in particular, about what I allegedly said, even when there is a clear electronic record right on this very page of what I actually did say!

    I do not believe there is any serious doubt that a Jewish power bloc that, at the time, was already quite powerful, was lobbying to take the U.S. into the war. There were also anglophile elements and people who were outright agents of the British state operating with that same goal. There also may be overlap between the two aforementioned groups. I, at no point, claimed that I knew which factor was “critical”. You are putting words in my mouth, that is not honest, and you should stop if you wish to continue any discussion with me.

    What I simply argue is that the Jewish power bloc was a real factor in the history and an attempt to recount the history excluding such an important element is bound to lead to explanations that are not really satisfactory.

    Perhaps you could explain why the US provided North Korea with $1.3 billion in food and energy assistance between 1995 and 2008? Are there any Jews in North Korea?

    Okay, frankly, it is beneath my dignity to respond to such a blatantly dishonest straw-man argument. It should be beneath your dignity as well to truck in such blatant straw men. At no point did I ever say that Jewish lobbies explained everything. Nor did I ever claim that Jewish lobbies were the sole explanatory factor of events. In the case of WW2, the Jewish lobby is a sufficiently important factor that an explanation that leaves it out is bound to be incomplete/false.

    Also, there is this very tricky lowering of the bar. You are implying that if you can prove that Jewish lobbies have nothing to do with food aid to North Korea, then this means you have demonstrated that Jewish lobbies had nothing to do with getting the U.S.A. into WW2! That is a blatant fallacy.

    Now, this business with the food aid to North Korea, it is so blatantly fallacious that I have to think that it was willfully dishonest. You knew it was a fallacious argument yet presented it anyway. I am pretty sure that you consciously made a dishonest argument. You cannot do that. Or you can, but obviously, I will simply opt to end any interaction with you. So you have to come clean on this or our conversation definitely ends.

    So I would like an apology for this. You can bitch and moan and take this personally, but I feel that I have to demand a certain level of discourse from people if I am going to invest the time to talk to them.

    I do believe there was at least an element of blowback in every one of the events you listed: 9/11, 7/7, San Bernardino, Paris and Brussels.

    Well, I infer that you believe this because this is the explanation that the mainstream media has offered. Have you read any of the independent research that suggests otherwise?

    Also, the same media telling you these things also tells you that WTC7 imploded from office fires. So these people are proven liars.

    Where I take sides with /, who you insulted gratuitously #22, is that reality is not all black and white.

    Excuse me, I do not, as a general rule gratuitously insult people. The person I was responding to (iffen) is such a blatant troll that, I think you must be affecting not to realize that. I think you have to stop being so dishonest and making dishonest arguments.

    Again, this business that I am supposed to explain how Jewish lobbies have something to do with food aid to North Korea — I would like an apology for that. It’s such a pathetically blatant dishonest argument, and I am fairly sure that you knew it was a dishonest argument when you made it.

    The title of my essay is about reclaiming reality, but we also have to reclaim honesty along the way. That was such a blatantly dishonest sort of argument that I feel it was disrespectful and insulting on your part. I believe you should apologize for that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis

    First of all, on Ireland proving something, I mean something general, this is rather dubious simply because Ireland is such a special case. Ireland was hardly the typical British colony. For starters, there is no important racial difference between Irish and English such that one could tell them apart. The Irish speak the same language as the English. Also, for all of it (and the Irishmen here can get mad at me, but so be it…) what cultural differences there are are actually quite subtle.
     
    Good God, you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, do you?

    What this means, of course, is that it is very very easy for Irish people to move about in England without calling too much attention to themselves.
     
    Stand up so we can hear you better, eh?
  136. alexander says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Thank you for your polite interaction with readers
     
    Well, I'm very interested in discussing some of these ideas. That really was a lot of the motivation to write this essay as well as the previous one.

    It's funny, as for politeness, today I really took the proverbial gloves with a couple of people. One thing is that, in the discussion that developed after my earlier essay, I really ended up feeling that I had wasted too much time talking to people who were... assholes. Like Wizard of Oz and people of that ilk. I really want to avoid getting into that time sink and mostly just concentrate on discussion with people like you and others, who really are here to discuss ideas honestly.

    Note that World War II didn’t officially begin until Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, yet we started mobilizing for war in 1938!
     
    Well, surely you know, Carlton, all of that was because they attacked us at Pearl Harbor! ;-)

    But, actually, seriously, some of the discussion just in the last few days has caused me to see something more clearly. That is that deep political analysis (as opposed to the superficial received version) almost invariably involves reversals of cause and effect.

    So, like with 9/11, the typical American is told (and firmly believes) that the desire to go to war in Afghanistan and elsewhere was caused by 9/11, when in reality, 9/11 happened because of the desire (of certain elements...) to get into these wars.

    But it doesn't start there. I mean, you have the U.S.S. Maine blowing up in Havana Harbor in 1898 and it's like we went to war with Spain because this ship was blown up in Havana Harbor. But no, of course not! The ship was blown up in Havana Harbor because, again, a certain faction, wanted their splendid little war with Spain.

    So, probably just about any event that was used to get the country into a war involves similar reversal of cause and effect in the narrative.

    I guess that's why you get these glitches in people's explanations, when they try to tell you that some event that happened after something else is the cause of the earlier event! You're bound to get that when you have the inversion of cause and effect, no?

    In a way, it can be comical. It's as if somebody sincerely believed that a woman's sudden interest in baby clothes and strollers is what causes her to get pregnant and have a baby!

    Exactly right, JR.

    And …..if you want to launch a war aggression, or in this case, multiple wars of aggression….there is NO WAY you could get the American people to budge on that, unless there is some form of “catalyst”, to piss us all off.

    Looking back,9-11 was the most perfect catalyst…because it was so shocking…so horrible…and so out of the blue…Americans were blindsided, I know I was.

    On the heels of 9-11, I was pissed off … and ready to go…I think our President could have summoned a 20 million man army if he needed it.

    I wanted to get the perps and bring em’ to justice….we ALL did.

    The last thing on my mind, at the time, was that my government would be willing to lie to me about something like this.

    Its just unthinkable.

    It was only after the curtain was pulled back on a sequence of key fraudulent events used to coax us into Iraq, that I began to step back, and say “What is going on here ?”…”What are these people doing ? ”

    But I guess ,by then, the train (as they say) had already left the station….

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    I wanted to get the perps and bring em’ to justice….we ALL did.
     
    I didn't.

    ALL minus 1 = Not All.

    & I wasn't fooled for a minute about the need for revenge; I thought from the very first moment that a truly great country would respond by NOT seeking revenge. Bush's performances in the immediate aftermath -- the bullhorn thing -- appalled me: sophomoric grandstanding, unworthy of a statesman.

    I admit to having admired Rudy Giuliani's immediate and avuncular responses and rhetoric, but it's since become apparent that he was part of the plot, & his rhetoric less than sincere.

    the second it was revealed that "passports were found" I smelled a rat.
    I didn't think about it much -- some may recall that the Enron crisis followed hard on the heels of 9/11, and dominated news. I followed that news pathway.

    But something I had heard, early on in reporting of 9/11 nagged -- something about Israel.
    I'd never paid attention to Israel before, but it rankled that Israel was "horning in on America's tragedy." It was months before I did some research re just what it was that was said about Israel in the context of 9/11, who said it, and why. The more I learned the angrier I got.
  137. Ace says:
    @Rick Johnson
    "High IQ Idiot”. I have a different reason for the phenomenon: Impelled from deep within, the higher the IQ the greater the acuity in rationalizing thinking or doing what one REALLY wants to think or do.

    There’s a lot to that, I think.

    I like Mr. Revusky’s focus on the influence of taboo and stimulating thought about what are taboos today.

    I also think that with greater literacy and the loss of control of intellectual life on the part of the Catholic Church it became possible for many people to make up their own minds on things. Extraordinary prosperity and industrialization also allowed many people to live lives divorced from the realities of personal labor and the exigencies of agricultural life. It became possible for people to speculate and explore as never before and thinking in the West took on a level of abstraction that was often unhealthy. For example, socialism is unsustainable but it took root rapidly and came to influence political and economic thinking in a major way. Basically, it’s airy fairy stuff.

    When people can freely engage in thinking that is unanchored in the realities of daily life then it is as you say with very smart people. They are exceptionally talented in taking half-baked ideas and extrapolating therefrom in creative ways.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Yes, Ace, "when people can freely engage in thinking". It's is a nice idea. Your comment is just a mishmash of cliches and prejudices one can expect from average americanus vulgaris. You have way to go to demonstrate that you can engage in thinking.
  138. utu says:
    @Ace
    There's a lot to that, I think.

    I like Mr. Revusky's focus on the influence of taboo and stimulating thought about what are taboos today.

    I also think that with greater literacy and the loss of control of intellectual life on the part of the Catholic Church it became possible for many people to make up their own minds on things. Extraordinary prosperity and industrialization also allowed many people to live lives divorced from the realities of personal labor and the exigencies of agricultural life. It became possible for people to speculate and explore as never before and thinking in the West took on a level of abstraction that was often unhealthy. For example, socialism is unsustainable but it took root rapidly and came to influence political and economic thinking in a major way. Basically, it's airy fairy stuff.

    When people can freely engage in thinking that is unanchored in the realities of daily life then it is as you say with very smart people. They are exceptionally talented in taking half-baked ideas and extrapolating therefrom in creative ways.

    Yes, Ace, “when people can freely engage in thinking”. It’s is a nice idea. Your comment is just a mishmash of cliches and prejudices one can expect from average americanus vulgaris. You have way to go to demonstrate that you can engage in thinking.

    Read More
  139. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @alexander
    Exactly right, JR.

    And .....if you want to launch a war aggression, or in this case, multiple wars of aggression....there is NO WAY you could get the American people to budge on that, unless there is some form of "catalyst", to piss us all off.

    Looking back,9-11 was the most perfect catalyst...because it was so shocking...so horrible...and so out of the blue...Americans were blindsided, I know I was.

    On the heels of 9-11, I was pissed off ... and ready to go...I think our President could have summoned a 20 million man army if he needed it.

    I wanted to get the perps and bring em' to justice....we ALL did.

    The last thing on my mind, at the time, was that my government would be willing to lie to me about something like this.

    Its just unthinkable.

    It was only after the curtain was pulled back on a sequence of key fraudulent events used to coax us into Iraq, that I began to step back, and say "What is going on here ?"..."What are these people doing ? "

    But I guess ,by then, the train (as they say) had already left the station....

    I wanted to get the perps and bring em’ to justice….we ALL did.

    I didn’t.

    ALL minus 1 = Not All.

    & I wasn’t fooled for a minute about the need for revenge; I thought from the very first moment that a truly great country would respond by NOT seeking revenge. Bush’s performances in the immediate aftermath — the bullhorn thing — appalled me: sophomoric grandstanding, unworthy of a statesman.

    I admit to having admired Rudy Giuliani’s immediate and avuncular responses and rhetoric, but it’s since become apparent that he was part of the plot, & his rhetoric less than sincere.

    the second it was revealed that “passports were found” I smelled a rat.
    I didn’t think about it much — some may recall that the Enron crisis followed hard on the heels of 9/11, and dominated news. I followed that news pathway.

    But something I had heard, early on in reporting of 9/11 nagged — something about Israel.
    I’d never paid attention to Israel before, but it rankled that Israel was “horning in on America’s tragedy.” It was months before I did some research re just what it was that was said about Israel in the context of 9/11, who said it, and why. The more I learned the angrier I got.

    Read More
  140. @This Is Our Home
    Unz, why do you host this half-wit here? He cannot even understand high school level epistemology. He would get an F.

    He cannot even understand high school level epistemology.

    Oh, you’ve got me now, you dastardly dastard, used that hidden weapon, the big six syllable word.

    EPISTEMOLOGY!

    (WTF? He-pissed-the-mologee??? WTF is a mologee???)

    God damn! (Choking sound) I can’t even say the word… help! Can you say epistemology….

    But hey, I can say Egg McMuffin. Can you say Egg McMuffin?

    I mean, c’mon, listen up a sec, you little shit eating bastard. Has it not occurred to you just how out of your depth you are here? I mean, you are a pathetic little wanker who thinks he can wow people by using some big word. Everybody here with a grain of sense knows that you don’t really even know what the word means, everybody here sees through you. You’re just such a pathetic little shit eater….

    You’re like somebody who goes to a high end chess tournament and thinks he’s going to get people in the 3 move scholar’s mate or something. It’s just not going to happen, don’t you get it? The first clue might be that I outlined most of the main sophomoric tactics you guys use right in my essays! So why try this stuff on me here?

    You should understand this is the end of the line. There is some initial interaction in which I respond more or less politely to your bullshit and pretend to take you (a little bit) seriously, but then the pretences have to drop and I take the gloves off. Obviously I do because I do not have this pussy-whipped politically correct bullshit ethic that I have to endlessly pretend that I respect people WHEN I DON’T!

    You’re tapped out. Your little tricks don’t work, you’re so far out of your depth. Go troll somewhere else. Get some practice where it’s easier and build your skills and then come back and try to troll me, if you want. But this is just such a complete waste of time. You’re tapped out, this is the end of the line. So get lost. Fuck off.

    Read More
  141. Ace says:
    @Khan Bodin
    There is no helping exceptionally corrupt "nation" known as Murica. Your time is up! 3rd world is waiting for you. Don't drag your feet. >)

    I look forward to finding out what the exceptionally corrupt 3rd world has in store for us. I bet it will be interesting.

    Read More
  142. Ace says:
    @utu
    Yes, Ace, "when people can freely engage in thinking". It's is a nice idea. Your comment is just a mishmash of cliches and prejudices one can expect from average americanus vulgaris. You have way to go to demonstrate that you can engage in thinking.

    Feeling a little cranky are we?

    Read More
  143. @Jonathan Revusky
    I probably cannot reply to every point you are making. I mean, I could, systematically, but I don't think I'm willing to put in the time. It becomes very time-consuming to reply to somebody who tends to twist things you say in a rather dishonest manner, who is constantly straw-manning. That does seem to be your case, and, really, if you do have the intellectual curiosity to continue the conversation, you will have to raise your level, or you can expect that this is my last response to you.

    First of all, on Ireland proving something, I mean something general, this is rather dubious simply because Ireland is such a special case. Ireland was hardly the typical British colony. For starters, there is no important racial difference between Irish and English such that one could tell them apart. The Irish speak the same language as the English. Also, for all of it (and the Irishmen here can get mad at me, but so be it...) what cultural differences there are are actually quite subtle.

    What this means, of course, is that it is very very easy for Irish people to move about in England without calling too much attention to themselves. On the other hand, it also means that it is orders of magnitude easier for agents of the British State to infiltrate Irish nationalist groups, since infiltrating other sorts of nationalist groups requires linguistic/cultural skills that few Brits possess! (Aside from the basic racial problem!)

    Now, yes, there is a centuries-old problem of sectarian violence between Irish Catholics and anglo-protestants in Ireland. Almost all of that sectarian violence took place in Ireland itself and thus, by any reasonable definition, does not constitute "blowback" anyway. You have to look at IRA bombings that took place in Britain. First of all, there is a wikipedia page listing all of these incidents in Britain and one thing that is striking is how few of them there really are. I think the bloodiest decade of IRA terrorism in all of Britain is something on the order of 30 dead. In a decade. Like 3 people a year or something like that, that's it. You have a lot of bombs that went off and didn't hurt anybody but made headline news, but that is.... well... Anyway 3 people whacked i a typical year. Bad if you're one of those three people, but on a national level, you can say this was always a non-problem.

    Now, the other aspect of this is that, what few incidents there are that you could call blowback, we still haven't established that they really were. They could perfectly well have been Deep State false flags as well! In fact, in a conversation I had with Kevin Barrett last week where this came up (actually, you can find it on noliesradio.org) Kevin said that this stuff was also false flag. I said I didn't know. Because I didn't and don't. I suspect that you don't know either really.

    In any case, if whatever happened with the IRA were the only bona fide blowback that the British Empire ever faced, does this not mean that there is something fishy about claiming that "blowback" is this very important general phenomenon? I mean, for many decades, the line was that the sun never set on the British Empire. And it was true. It was a vast collection of territories. And, no, I do not believe there was some huge problem that made blowback logistically difficult. A determined colonial or group of colonial subjects could make their way to London and blow up a building. They just never did.

    No, it is completely clear to me that if blowback were an important general problem, the British Empire should have had a significant blowback problem. This is a simple, common-sense. Again, the onus is on the other side of the debate. If you claim that blowback is this big phenomenon, why did the British Empire not have really any blowback problem to speak of?

    I have a very simple explanation personally, which is that blowback doesn't really exist!

    If you really think that Jewish political power was critical to the Lend-Lease agreements with the USSR, when Britain was already at war with Germany for about a year and a half, and Germany was occupying multiple allied countries in Europe, then you need to provide some evidence.
     
    Well, you've really got to stop putting words in my mouth. I did not say it was "critical". I did not say that because I do not claim to know for sure. You will note generally that I am actually quite careful about making such claims. You, however, do not seem to be similarly careful about making claims, in particular, about what I allegedly said, even when there is a clear electronic record right on this very page of what I actually did say!

    I do not believe there is any serious doubt that a Jewish power bloc that, at the time, was already quite powerful, was lobbying to take the U.S. into the war. There were also anglophile elements and people who were outright agents of the British state operating with that same goal. There also may be overlap between the two aforementioned groups. I, at no point, claimed that I knew which factor was "critical". You are putting words in my mouth, that is not honest, and you should stop if you wish to continue any discussion with me.

    What I simply argue is that the Jewish power bloc was a real factor in the history and an attempt to recount the history excluding such an important element is bound to lead to explanations that are not really satisfactory.

    Perhaps you could explain why the US provided North Korea with $1.3 billion in food and energy assistance between 1995 and 2008? Are there any Jews in North Korea?
     
    Okay, frankly, it is beneath my dignity to respond to such a blatantly dishonest straw-man argument. It should be beneath your dignity as well to truck in such blatant straw men. At no point did I ever say that Jewish lobbies explained everything. Nor did I ever claim that Jewish lobbies were the sole explanatory factor of events. In the case of WW2, the Jewish lobby is a sufficiently important factor that an explanation that leaves it out is bound to be incomplete/false.

    Also, there is this very tricky lowering of the bar. You are implying that if you can prove that Jewish lobbies have nothing to do with food aid to North Korea, then this means you have demonstrated that Jewish lobbies had nothing to do with getting the U.S.A. into WW2! That is a blatant fallacy.

    Now, this business with the food aid to North Korea, it is so blatantly fallacious that I have to think that it was willfully dishonest. You knew it was a fallacious argument yet presented it anyway. I am pretty sure that you consciously made a dishonest argument. You cannot do that. Or you can, but obviously, I will simply opt to end any interaction with you. So you have to come clean on this or our conversation definitely ends.

    So I would like an apology for this. You can bitch and moan and take this personally, but I feel that I have to demand a certain level of discourse from people if I am going to invest the time to talk to them.

    I do believe there was at least an element of blowback in every one of the events you listed: 9/11, 7/7, San Bernardino, Paris and Brussels.
     
    Well, I infer that you believe this because this is the explanation that the mainstream media has offered. Have you read any of the independent research that suggests otherwise?

    Also, the same media telling you these things also tells you that WTC7 imploded from office fires. So these people are proven liars.

    Where I take sides with /, who you insulted gratuitously #22, is that reality is not all black and white.
     
    Excuse me, I do not, as a general rule gratuitously insult people. The person I was responding to (iffen) is such a blatant troll that, I think you must be affecting not to realize that. I think you have to stop being so dishonest and making dishonest arguments.

    Again, this business that I am supposed to explain how Jewish lobbies have something to do with food aid to North Korea -- I would like an apology for that. It's such a pathetically blatant dishonest argument, and I am fairly sure that you knew it was a dishonest argument when you made it.

    The title of my essay is about reclaiming reality, but we also have to reclaim honesty along the way. That was such a blatantly dishonest sort of argument that I feel it was disrespectful and insulting on your part. I believe you should apologize for that.

    First of all, on Ireland proving something, I mean something general, this is rather dubious simply because Ireland is such a special case. Ireland was hardly the typical British colony. For starters, there is no important racial difference between Irish and English such that one could tell them apart. The Irish speak the same language as the English. Also, for all of it (and the Irishmen here can get mad at me, but so be it…) what cultural differences there are are actually quite subtle.

    Good God, you don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about, do you?

    What this means, of course, is that it is very very easy for Irish people to move about in England without calling too much attention to themselves.

    Stand up so we can hear you better, eh?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    Andrew, of course the cultural differences between English and Irish are fairly small compared to the difference between English and people from the Indian subcontinent, say. I don't think anybody reasonable would dispute that. (Of course, I've had enough prior interaction with you to know that you are not necessarily somebody reasonable...)

    But, in any case, there's no problem saying I'm wrong, that's okay. (Even though the point I was making is correct...) The issue is that if you say I am wrong, you are supposed to develop an argument, explain why I'm wrong. You're some sort of professional academic apparently, so you should understand that.

  144. @Andrew E. Mathis

    First of all, on Ireland proving something, I mean something general, this is rather dubious simply because Ireland is such a special case. Ireland was hardly the typical British colony. For starters, there is no important racial difference between Irish and English such that one could tell them apart. The Irish speak the same language as the English. Also, for all of it (and the Irishmen here can get mad at me, but so be it…) what cultural differences there are are actually quite subtle.
     
    Good God, you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, do you?

    What this means, of course, is that it is very very easy for Irish people to move about in England without calling too much attention to themselves.
     
    Stand up so we can hear you better, eh?

    Andrew, of course the cultural differences between English and Irish are fairly small compared to the difference between English and people from the Indian subcontinent, say. I don’t think anybody reasonable would dispute that. (Of course, I’ve had enough prior interaction with you to know that you are not necessarily somebody reasonable…)

    But, in any case, there’s no problem saying I’m wrong, that’s okay. (Even though the point I was making is correct…) The issue is that if you say I am wrong, you are supposed to develop an argument, explain why I’m wrong. You’re some sort of professional academic apparently, so you should understand that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    I think the Irish question is very interesting. From observation, the backbone of opinion in favour of immigration into the UK has been the 'Im descended from immigrants' trope that is rolled out by Irish catholic-heritage, as well as Jewish heritage, 'white British'. The protestant Irish-heritage people that I know (not many) do not like immigration. The Jewish-heritage 'IDFM' has disappeared in context of Syrian refugees but Irish-heritage seem to be still open-border-minded for England. The troubles are kicking off again. The southern Irish really do want their country back in tact. The northern irish are germanic people from English borders. It isn't possible to distinguish all Irish but there is a 'colleen' look typical of SIrish women.
  145. @Jonathan Revusky

    He cannot even understand high school level epistemology.
     
    Oh, you've got me now, you dastardly dastard, used that hidden weapon, the big six syllable word.

    EPISTEMOLOGY!

    (WTF? He-pissed-the-mologee??? WTF is a mologee???)

    God damn! (Choking sound) I can't even say the word... help! Can you say epistemology....

    But hey, I can say Egg McMuffin. Can you say Egg McMuffin?

    I mean, c'mon, listen up a sec, you little shit eating bastard. Has it not occurred to you just how out of your depth you are here? I mean, you are a pathetic little wanker who thinks he can wow people by using some big word. Everybody here with a grain of sense knows that you don't really even know what the word means, everybody here sees through you. You're just such a pathetic little shit eater....

    You're like somebody who goes to a high end chess tournament and thinks he's going to get people in the 3 move scholar's mate or something. It's just not going to happen, don't you get it? The first clue might be that I outlined most of the main sophomoric tactics you guys use right in my essays! So why try this stuff on me here?

    You should understand this is the end of the line. There is some initial interaction in which I respond more or less politely to your bullshit and pretend to take you (a little bit) seriously, but then the pretences have to drop and I take the gloves off. Obviously I do because I do not have this pussy-whipped politically correct bullshit ethic that I have to endlessly pretend that I respect people WHEN I DON'T!

    You're tapped out. Your little tricks don't work, you're so far out of your depth. Go troll somewhere else. Get some practice where it's easier and build your skills and then come back and try to troll me, if you want. But this is just such a complete waste of time. You're tapped out, this is the end of the line. So get lost. Fuck off.

    It’s a high school word…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    It’s a high school word…
     
    You really have me wondering. One would think that you seriously believe that I don't know what the word "epistemology" means. And you really think that you can whip out some six-syllable word and wow people with it, this is the sophomoric level you are operating at. If that is the case, there is just not a glimmer of understanding on your part of just how out of your depth you are.

    Regardless, dude, you've had your fun. Now do piss off.

    Note to the Gallery

    I am still trying to figure out what the best way of dealing with this kind of troll is. I am not inclined to just perpetually maintain some polite facade with these people. I just don't see the point.

    I'm still just a guest contributor and have no moderation capability. If I did, I would just delete this guy's messages in a heartbeat. Same as this Geokat asshole, for example. Iffen as well. I believe in free speech, probably more than most people do, but that does not mean pretending that I think that all speech has value! And it can't mean letting bad-faithed trolls disrupt what could be a serious, interesting conversation.

    The real problem is that the time I spend engaging with readers in this comments section, the vast majority of it really should be with people who are here in good faith and really trying to develop some real discussion and learn some things. I can't just let these bad-faithed people suck up all my time here.
  146. helena says:
    @Jonathan Revusky
    Andrew, of course the cultural differences between English and Irish are fairly small compared to the difference between English and people from the Indian subcontinent, say. I don't think anybody reasonable would dispute that. (Of course, I've had enough prior interaction with you to know that you are not necessarily somebody reasonable...)

    But, in any case, there's no problem saying I'm wrong, that's okay. (Even though the point I was making is correct...) The issue is that if you say I am wrong, you are supposed to develop an argument, explain why I'm wrong. You're some sort of professional academic apparently, so you should understand that.

    I think the Irish question is very interesting. From observation, the backbone of opinion in favour of immigration into the UK has been the ‘Im descended from immigrants’ trope that is rolled out by Irish catholic-heritage, as well as Jewish heritage, ‘white British’. The protestant Irish-heritage people that I know (not many) do not like immigration. The Jewish-heritage ‘IDFM’ has disappeared in context of Syrian refugees but Irish-heritage seem to be still open-border-minded for England. The troubles are kicking off again. The southern Irish really do want their country back in tact. The northern irish are germanic people from English borders. It isn’t possible to distinguish all Irish but there is a ‘colleen’ look typical of SIrish women.

    Read More
  147. geokat62 says:

    Anyway, I’m getting a bit of déjã vu here. What you tend to do is you grab some book and then start waving it around like it’s the holy bible and start quoting the author of the book like the guy is Jesus Christ and demanding that people read this and respond to it.

    I don’t just grab some book, I grab a book that is written by someone who actually knows something about the topic they’re writing about – i.e., unlike you, they actually possess the credentials required to speak intelligently about the subject matter they write about. Ryan Mackey, for instance, is a NASA rocket scientist who has the technical background to understand and explain the physics of collapsing buildings. Chalmers Johnson is the person who literally wrote the book (actually 3 books) on blowback. You, on the other hand, …. what are your credentials, again?

    Here, it’s “blowback” and the guy simply assumes what he needs to prove.

    Nice try. As I indicated in my previous comment, the excerpt I provided was from the introduction to the third book of his trilogy on blowback. So, just for your information,what authors typical try to do is they first state their thesis and they then spend the rest of the book (in this case, 3 books) proving it… something you never do in your two articles. Rather than proving your thesis – that you are “fairly certain” that virtually every instance of blowback is really a false flag/inside job – you simply assert it, based on arguments from incredulity. Here’s the fundamental flaw with this approach:

    It is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen. The fallacy is an argument from ignorance and an informal fallacy.

    This fallacy takes the following form:

    P1: One can’t imagine how X could be true.
    P2: (unstated) If X is true, then one could imagine how X could be true.
    C1: X is false.

    Chalmers Johnson is a dead bullshitter and I’m a living truth teller.

    Ok, if you say so.

    You are such a pathetic little shit eater, you know that…

    Still not sure why Rurik thinks you’re a gentleman. As far as I’m concerned, Talha is the epitome of gentlemanliness… but you, you’re at the opposite end of that continuum. But everyone is entitled to make their own assessments, I guess. Like beauty, it is all in the eye of the beholder.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    Geo,

    Your comment:

    "Rather than proving your thesis-" That you are "fairly certain"that virtually every instance of blow back is a false flag/inside job - you simply assert it based on arguments from incredulity.."

    Rather Geo, the important thing is to recognize that many of these terror events could very well be "false flags" .

    In so many ways , it makes the most sense, that they are.


    Lets look at just one of these incidents....."The Times Square Bomber".....who reportedly spent six to eight months, learning the skill of bomb-making, and terror plotting, from Al Qaeda in Pakistan.......
    So imagine, Geo, if you are he, for a moment,

    You return to New York with your big plan (thought out and rehearsed to the last second), spend weeks(?) constructing a Manure bomb ( that cannot explode!?!) then spend days(?) mounting it in you SUV....and what do you do then ?

    You drive your SUV into times square, with your non-exploding manure bomb....DOUBLE PARK at a busy intersection...put your HAZARD lights on....leave the engine RUNNING....and take off ?

    Is this your super, well-planned terror plot ?

    Wouldn't a bona-fide terrorist with an IQ above 40, at least take the time to make a bomb that will "really" explode....put a two hour timer on it......then PARK their SUV...somewhere more inconspicuous.....so it won't be detected.....and make their getaway ?

    You are saying this is not a possibility , Geo ?

    Its not that The Times Square Bomber may not be "authentic"....., he might be,.... but given what happened.....and how it happened....it could just as easily have been a bogus "staged event."

    Not "blow back", Geo, but "Terror Fraud".

    Designed to "Terrorize you" into feeling you are not safe and cough up more trillions of your tax dollars on our national security apparatus.

    Designed to perpetuate the GWOT, not "win" it.

    And there is absolutely NO recognition of that possibility from ANYWHERE within our entire chain of accountability.

    We have spent literally TENS of TRILLIONS of our dollars, fighting terrorism, ....and of all the tens of thousands of "counter terrorism" experts in the United states...


    ...Not ONE has ever been taught anything, AT ALL, about detecting "False flags".

    Not ONE..

    As a matter of fact, it is the complete opposite..

    How do you explain that, Geo ?

    , @Jonathan Revusky

    I don’t just grab some book, I grab a book that is written by someone who actually knows something about the topic they’re writing about
     
    Oh, that is such bullshit. That is not what you do. What you do is you look for a book or whatever materials that back up what you want to believe and then you say this person is the man, the expert, and start the waving the book around.

    So, if you find some book that says what you want to believe (or want other people to believe) then you say: hey, this book is really convincing and blah blah. Like that Popular Mechanics garbage was the first thing. Last time round, you started with that discredited garbage and then switched over to the Ryan Mackey bullshit.

    That Popular Mechanics stuff is something that gives off such a whiff of total shillery. But anyway, that's your game. So like with Ryan Mackey, another person who gives off a total stench of shillery, you say: "oh, yeah, this guy really knows what he's talking about." He works for NASA! But then if somebody brings up that over 2000 credentialed architects and engineers signed the AE911Truth petition calling for a new investigation, basically because the buildings were obviously blown up, then that doesn't mean anything. Somehow you can dismiss that out of hand! And you can go to the AE911Truth website or youtube channel and there are people who really have designed skyscrapers telling you that what they claim happened is impossible. And you can just dismiss all that. Some guy who blows up buildings for a living or who has actually designed skyscrapers, if he says what you don't want to hear, suddenly that person is not an expert. No, Ryan Mackey is the man!

    So, I mean, basically, if somebody is espousing the point you are pushing, then they're an expert. And if not, even if it's over 2000 credentialed people, well, that's meaningless suddenly. Of course, this is an absolutely corrupted, dishonest intellectual process! It's just laughable!


    Ryan Mackey, for instance, is a NASA rocket scientist who has the technical background to understand and explain the physics of collapsing buildings.
     
    Oh, so NASA is now in the building demolitions business, are they?

    Well, c'mon. Ryan Mackey is some guy in a completely different branch of engineering. In the earlier essay, I linked the interview with Danny Jowenko, who really was a professional demolitions expert. He blew up buildings for a living, he's shown the footage of building 7 and says: that's a controlled demolition. So that's real expert testimony and it doesn't affect you at all because he isn't saying what you want to believe.


    You, on the other hand, …. what are your credentials, again?
     
    Well, my credentials are that I, unlike you, am not a total fool. If somebody with multiple ph.D.'s, or who works for NASA, tells me that pigs can fly, I am not duly impressed. Like, sorry, peddle the bullshit elsewhere, dude, I'm not a shit eater. (Not any more. I used to be, but I wised up...)

    In any case, this is ridiculous. This medium gives people the technical ability to participate anonymously -- which, okay, is what most people do. But... OBVIOUSLY, if you avail yourself of that, and choose to hide your identity, you can't start this nonsense of demanding what other people's credentials are. This is like wanting to have your cake and eat it to. You completely hide who you are, not even tell anybody your name, and then demand that they give you their CV or something. That's ridiculous.


    Nice try. As I indicated in my previous comment, the excerpt I provided was from the introduction to the third book of his trilogy on blowback.
     
    Oh, it's a "trilogy" is it? Well, in that case... maybe it will be fun to read, like the Lord of the Rings. That's a trilogy too.... So it's now no longer the 306 page treatise on flying pigs, it's the trilogy. "Have you read all three books of the trilogy?"

    Jaysus, what a fucking clown you are, dude....


    Still not sure why Rurik thinks you’re a gentleman.
     
    Well, I have no idea either. Ask Rurik. I never said I was a "gentleman". If that means somebody that you can insult constantly and who won't insult you back, no, I'm not that. Obviously not. And if it means, somebody who will always pretend that he respects you, when, in reality, he does not, then I am most certainly no gentleman. I'm not going to pretend that I respect you. You wanted me to agree to some "Rules of Engagement" where I was supposed to pretend that I respect you or something. No fucking way, man.

    Moreover, you are a proven liar. I have documented that on a couple of occasions. I have caught you lying. I outlined the major case where you were caught lying here:

    http://www.unz.com/tengelhardt/mantra-for-911/#comment-1135150


    Rather than proving your thesis...
     
    Well, whenever I ask some shit eater like you who defends the absurd 9/11 story what is the best proof of this, that these attacks were orchestrated by Bin Laden from Afghanistan, you simply refuse to answer the question. You are specifically saying you believe these concrete individuals committed this concrete crime and, when asked what the evidence is, refuse to answer.

    How can any serious discussion proceed like this?

    I mean, it's not just a question of intellectual honesty. It's basic morality. As I said before, it's right there in the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not bear false witness." If you say that these guys committed a crime, you have to be able to say what the evidence is. That's the case with the people they say did 9/11 and it's the case with the latest incidents there in Europe. If you say these poor patsies like Abdelhamid Abbaoud, let's say, are real terrorists, then provide some proof and we can go forward.

    If you say these guys are guilty and I express doubt, then the next logical step must be that you tell us what the proof is. It's not up to me to prove the negative! You just talk such endless nonsense.

    Again: What is the strongest available proof that the events of 9/11 were orchestrated by Osama Bin Laden from Afghanistan?

    This is a legitimate question. Obviously it is ! You cannot refuse to answer it! You refuse to answer a question like that and then start asking me what my "credentials" are instead. No dice. You cannot avail yourself of anonymity and then start asking other people who sign their real names to what they write for their credentials. That is utterly absurd!

    Anyway, either you are some sort of paid shill or there is something deeply wrong with you. I mean, nobody normal would keep coming back and get the whupping from me that you always receive. You would have to be some sort of masochist to just keep making a total ass of yourself again and again as you do. So it's that or you're getting paid, I guess. I don't know really. I don't care either, frankly.

  148. alexander says:
    @geokat62

    Anyway, I’m getting a bit of déjã vu here. What you tend to do is you grab some book and then start waving it around like it’s the holy bible and start quoting the author of the book like the guy is Jesus Christ and demanding that people read this and respond to it.
     
    I don't just grab some book, I grab a book that is written by someone who actually knows something about the topic they're writing about - i.e., unlike you, they actually possess the credentials required to speak intelligently about the subject matter they write about. Ryan Mackey, for instance, is a NASA rocket scientist who has the technical background to understand and explain the physics of collapsing buildings. Chalmers Johnson is the person who literally wrote the book (actually 3 books) on blowback. You, on the other hand, .... what are your credentials, again?

    Here, it’s “blowback” and the guy simply assumes what he needs to prove.
     
    Nice try. As I indicated in my previous comment, the excerpt I provided was from the introduction to the third book of his trilogy on blowback. So, just for your information,what authors typical try to do is they first state their thesis and they then spend the rest of the book (in this case, 3 books) proving it... something you never do in your two articles. Rather than proving your thesis - that you are "fairly certain" that virtually every instance of blowback is really a false flag/inside job - you simply assert it, based on arguments from incredulity. Here's the fundamental flaw with this approach:

    It is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen. The fallacy is an argument from ignorance and an informal fallacy.

    This fallacy takes the following form:

    P1: One can't imagine how X could be true.
    P2: (unstated) If X is true, then one could imagine how X could be true.
    C1: X is false.
     


    Chalmers Johnson is a dead bullshitter and I’m a living truth teller.
     
    Ok, if you say so.

    You are such a pathetic little shit eater, you know that…
     
    Still not sure why Rurik thinks you're a gentleman. As far as I'm concerned, Talha is the epitome of gentlemanliness... but you, you're at the opposite end of that continuum. But everyone is entitled to make their own assessments, I guess. Like beauty, it is all in the eye of the beholder.

    Geo,

    Your comment:

    “Rather than proving your thesis-” That you are “fairly certain”that virtually every instance of blow back is a false flag/inside job – you simply assert it based on arguments from incredulity..”

    Rather Geo, the important thing is to recognize that many of these terror events could very well be “false flags” .

    In so many ways , it makes the most sense, that they are.

    Lets look at just one of these incidents…..”The Times Square Bomber”…..who reportedly spent six to eight months, learning the skill of bomb-making, and terror plotting, from Al Qaeda in Pakistan…….
    So imagine, Geo, if you are he, for a moment,

    You return to New York with your big plan (thought out and rehearsed to the last second), spend weeks(?) constructing a Manure bomb ( that cannot explode!?!) then spend days(?) mounting it in you SUV….and what do you do then ?

    You drive your SUV into times square, with your non-exploding manure bomb….DOUBLE PARK at a busy intersection…put your HAZARD lights on….leave the engine RUNNING….and take off ?

    Is this your super, well-planned terror plot ?

    Wouldn’t a bona-fide terrorist with an IQ above 40, at least take the time to make a bomb that will “really” explode….put a two hour timer on it……then PARK their SUV…somewhere more inconspicuous…..so it won’t be detected…..and make their getaway ?

    You are saying this is not a possibility , Geo ?

    Its not that The Times Square Bomber may not be “authentic”….., he might be,…. but given what happened…..and how it happened….it could just as easily have been a bogus “staged event.”

    Not “blow back”, Geo, but “Terror Fraud”.

    Designed to “Terrorize you” into feeling you are not safe and cough up more trillions of your tax dollars on our national security apparatus.

    Designed to perpetuate the GWOT, not “win” it.

    And there is absolutely NO recognition of that possibility from ANYWHERE within our entire chain of accountability.

    We have spent literally TENS of TRILLIONS of our dollars, fighting terrorism, ….and of all the tens of thousands of “counter terrorism” experts in the United states…

    …Not ONE has ever been taught anything, AT ALL, about detecting “False flags”.

    Not ONE..

    As a matter of fact, it is the complete opposite..

    How do you explain that, Geo ?

    Read More
  149. @geokat62

    Anyway, I’m getting a bit of déjã vu here. What you tend to do is you grab some book and then start waving it around like it’s the holy bible and start quoting the author of the book like the guy is Jesus Christ and demanding that people read this and respond to it.
     
    I don't just grab some book, I grab a book that is written by someone who actually knows something about the topic they're writing about - i.e., unlike you, they actually possess the credentials required to speak intelligently about the subject matter they write about. Ryan Mackey, for instance, is a NASA rocket scientist who has the technical background to understand and explain the physics of collapsing buildings. Chalmers Johnson is the person who literally wrote the book (actually 3 books) on blowback. You, on the other hand, .... what are your credentials, again?

    Here, it’s “blowback” and the guy simply assumes what he needs to prove.
     
    Nice try. As I indicated in my previous comment, the excerpt I provided was from the introduction to the third book of his trilogy on blowback. So, just for your information,what authors typical try to do is they first state their thesis and they then spend the rest of the book (in this case, 3 books) proving it... something you never do in your two articles. Rather than proving your thesis - that you are "fairly certain" that virtually every instance of blowback is really a false flag/inside job - you simply assert it, based on arguments from incredulity. Here's the fundamental flaw with this approach:

    It is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen. The fallacy is an argument from ignorance and an informal fallacy.

    This fallacy takes the following form:

    P1: One can't imagine how X could be true.
    P2: (unstated) If X is true, then one could imagine how X could be true.
    C1: X is false.
     


    Chalmers Johnson is a dead bullshitter and I’m a living truth teller.
     
    Ok, if you say so.

    You are such a pathetic little shit eater, you know that…
     
    Still not sure why Rurik thinks you're a gentleman. As far as I'm concerned, Talha is the epitome of gentlemanliness... but you, you're at the opposite end of that continuum. But everyone is entitled to make their own assessments, I guess. Like beauty, it is all in the eye of the beholder.

    I don’t just grab some book, I grab a book that is written by someone who actually knows something about the topic they’re writing about

    Oh, that is such bullshit. That is not what you do. What you do is you look for a book or whatever materials that back up what you want to believe and then you say this person is the man, the expert, and start the waving the book around.

    So, if you find some book that says what you want to believe (or want other people to believe) then you say: hey, this book is really convincing and blah blah. Like that Popular Mechanics garbage was the first thing. Last time round, you started with that discredited garbage and then switched over to the Ryan Mackey bullshit.

    That Popular Mechanics stuff is something that gives off such a whiff of total shillery. But anyway, that’s your game. So like with Ryan Mackey, another person who gives off a total stench of shillery, you say: “oh, yeah, this guy really knows what he’s talking about.” He works for NASA! But then if somebody brings up that over 2000 credentialed architects and engineers signed the AE911Truth petition calling for a new investigation, basically because the buildings were obviously blown up, then that doesn’t mean anything. Somehow you can dismiss that out of hand! And you can go to the AE911Truth website or youtube channel and there are people who really have designed skyscrapers telling you that what they claim happened is impossible. And you can just dismiss all that. Some guy who blows up buildings for a living or who has actually designed skyscrapers, if he says what you don’t want to hear, suddenly that person is not an expert. No, Ryan Mackey is the man!

    So, I mean, basically, if somebody is espousing the point you are pushing, then they’re an expert. And if not, even if it’s over 2000 credentialed people, well, that’s meaningless suddenly. Of course, this is an absolutely corrupted, dishonest intellectual process! It’s just laughable!

    Ryan Mackey, for instance, is a NASA rocket scientist who has the technical background to understand and explain the physics of collapsing buildings.

    Oh, so NASA is now in the building demolitions business, are they?

    Well, c’mon. Ryan Mackey is some guy in a completely different branch of engineering. In the earlier essay, I linked the interview with Danny Jowenko, who really was a professional demolitions expert. He blew up buildings for a living, he’s shown the footage of building 7 and says: that’s a controlled demolition. So that’s real expert testimony and it doesn’t affect you at all because he isn’t saying what you want to believe.

    You, on the other hand, …. what are your credentials, again?

    Well, my credentials are that I, unlike you, am not a total fool. If somebody with multiple ph.D.’s, or who works for NASA, tells me that pigs can fly, I am not duly impressed. Like, sorry, peddle the bullshit elsewhere, dude, I’m not a shit eater. (Not any more. I used to be, but I wised up…)

    In any case, this is ridiculous. This medium gives people the technical ability to participate anonymously — which, okay, is what most people do. But… OBVIOUSLY, if you avail yourself of that, and choose to hide your identity, you can’t start this nonsense of demanding what other people’s credentials are. This is like wanting to have your cake and eat it to. You completely hide who you are, not even tell anybody your name, and then demand that they give you their CV or something. That’s ridiculous.

    Nice try. As I indicated in my previous comment, the excerpt I provided was from the introduction to the third book of his trilogy on blowback.

    Oh, it’s a “trilogy” is it? Well, in that case… maybe it will be fun to read, like the Lord of the Rings. That’s a trilogy too…. So it’s now no longer the 306 page treatise on flying pigs, it’s the trilogy. “Have you read all three books of the trilogy?”

    Jaysus, what a fucking clown you are, dude….

    Still not sure why Rurik thinks you’re a gentleman.

    Well, I have no idea either. Ask Rurik. I never said I was a “gentleman”. If that means somebody that you can insult constantly and who won’t insult you back, no, I’m not that. Obviously not. And if it means, somebody who will always pretend that he respects you, when, in reality, he does not, then I am most certainly no gentleman. I’m not going to pretend that I respect you. You wanted me to agree to some “Rules of Engagement” where I was supposed to pretend that I respect you or something. No fucking way, man.

    Moreover, you are a proven liar. I have documented that on a couple of occasions. I have caught you lying. I outlined the major case where you were caught lying here:

    http://www.unz.com/tengelhardt/mantra-for-911/#comment-1135150

    Rather than proving your thesis…

    Well, whenever I ask some shit eater like you who defends the absurd 9/11 story what is the best proof of this, that these attacks were orchestrated by Bin Laden from Afghanistan, you simply refuse to answer the question. You are specifically saying you believe these concrete individuals committed this concrete crime and, when asked what the evidence is, refuse to answer.

    How can any serious discussion proceed like this?

    I mean, it’s not just a question of intellectual honesty. It’s basic morality. As I said before, it’s right there in the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” If you say that these guys committed a crime, you have to be able to say what the evidence is. That’s the case with the people they say did 9/11 and it’s the case with the latest incidents there in Europe. If you say these poor patsies like Abdelhamid Abbaoud, let’s say, are real terrorists, then provide some proof and we can go forward.

    If you say these guys are guilty and I express doubt, then the next logical step must be that you tell us what the proof is. It’s not up to me to prove the negative! You just talk such endless nonsense.

    Again: What is the strongest available proof that the events of 9/11 were orchestrated by Osama Bin Laden from Afghanistan?

    This is a legitimate question. Obviously it is ! You cannot refuse to answer it! You refuse to answer a question like that and then start asking me what my “credentials” are instead. No dice. You cannot avail yourself of anonymity and then start asking other people who sign their real names to what they write for their credentials. That is utterly absurd!

    Anyway, either you are some sort of paid shill or there is something deeply wrong with you. I mean, nobody normal would keep coming back and get the whupping from me that you always receive. You would have to be some sort of masochist to just keep making a total ass of yourself again and again as you do. So it’s that or you’re getting paid, I guess. I don’t know really. I don’t care either, frankly.

    Read More
  150. geokat62 says:

    But then if somebody brings up that over 2000 credentialed architects and engineers signed the AE911Truth petition calling for a new investigation…

    I’ve never denied this fact. I just like to put it in context:

    [MORE]

    Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth tried to get the American Institute of Architects to pass a “Building 7 resolution” – “a Position Statement in support of a new investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.” However, it failed by a vote of 3,892 to 160 – garnering just over 4% support.

    http://911-engineers.blogspot.ca

    I linked the interview with Danny Jowenko, who really was a professional demolitions expert… So that’s real expert testimony and it doesn’t affect you at all because he isn’t saying what you want to believe.

    But what about the real expert testimony of the overwhelming majority of the other professional demolition experts:

    RW – [Demolition experts explain] how you go about setting charges to bring down a normal size building… That the fires would explode the explosives.

    TS – Not necessarily.

    RW – You keep saying not necessarily. But demolition experts say that they would.

    TS – They do, ok.

    RW – It would take teams of 75 to 100 men working for months to prep the WTC.

    RW – We get back to the absence of any audio evidence of explosives.

    RW – [according to the demolition experts] the logistics would be daunting to the point of impossibility.

    Part 3 of the debate concludes with the following question put to Tony Szamboti:

    RM – Tony, do you have a single piece of steel from anyone from any report that shows evidence of explosives, which is a very characteristic signature? Do you have a single piece?

    That Popular Mechanics stuff is something that gives off such a whiff of total shillery

    Oh, it’s shillery is it? Then why not take a crack at explaining these statements:

    Instead of the “What about” game these conspiracy theorists play, I prefer the “if … then” approach:

    1. If 4500 degree thermitics had been used to pulverize almost every inch of every concrete floor, then firefighters could not have walked on top of the debris pile that was left behind after the collapse. This photo shows that large parts of the buildings were left intact and not pulverized.

    2. If 4500 degree nanothermites were used to pulverize almost every inch of every concrete floor, then how could there have been millions of sheets of paper with an ignition temperature of only 451° raining down on the sidewalks?

    3. If 4500 degree nanothermites were used extensively even at the top to cause a supposed upward explosion, then why were first responders able to walk over the wreckage less than an hour after the Tower collapses?

    4. If there were 2800 degree rivers of molten steel in the debris, then why do NASA thermal images show maximum temperatures in the rubble of only 1400°?

    5. If the debris pile had 2800 degree temperatures, then why were firefighters able to pour millions of gallons of water all over it and not trigger the deadly thermal explosions that are caused when water comes in contact with molten steel or iron?

    6. If nanothermites pulverized everything, then why did the debris pile include a 13-story high facade?

    7. If classic controlled demolitions create minimal damage to adjacent structures, then why did the Verizon Building suffer $1.4 billion in damages?

    8. If the lateral ejection of beams were caused by explosive nanothermites, then there would have been deafening 140 db sounds that can’t be muffled by more than a few db or you lose the explosive force of the shock wave itself.

    9. If the South Tower tilted 22° at first, then controlled demolition experts could not have righted it mid-collapse.

    10. If nanothermites were used, then they would have spontaneously detonated at well under 1000° F. and would not have been controllable; no signal receiving device could have survived the fires and continued to receive the destruct command.

    11. If there had been large explosions prior to the collapse, then they would have been a part of the seismic record, and they were not.

    http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/

    Like, sorry, peddle the bullshit elsewhere, dude, I’m not a shit eater. (Not any more. I used to be, but I wised up…)

    If you can provide a satisfactory explanation of the 11 if/then statements, I’ll refrain from peddling bullshit. If you can’t, I’m afraid it is you who is peddling the bullshit. I look forward to your explanation of all 11 statements.

    Read More
  151. Anonymous says: • Website • Disclaimer

    Bravo for a fine essay. Yours is one of the few I have seen that raises the issue of the power of world Jewry. Thank you for your courage. I would only add one defense of the Catholic Church in the Galileo crisis: the point the Church was attempting to make (and did very badly, unfortunately from the point of view of public relations) was this: if heliocentrism is the equivalent of physical truth, and the nature of scientific hypothesis has to do with the equivalence of truth and the physical condition, where does this leave the issue of moral truth? Indeed, one could say that the rift which developed between physical and moral truth continued to widen, and has left us with the TITTs we are afflicted with today.

    Read More
  152. Said documents expressed the concern that the CIA operation to overthrow the government of Mossadegh in Iran could lead to “blowback”. (Boy, did it ever!)

    and

    So, if “blowback terrorism” is a real, important phenomenon, the British Empire should have had a huge “blowback” problem, no? Surely angry Indians or Africans or Arabs were plotting how they would make their way to London and kill some random Brits to express their dissatisfaction with British government policies, no? And surely, the local authorities in the home country of Britain were on constant guard against this “blowback”, right?

    IF the overthrow of Mossadegh led to “Boy did it ever exclamation point” blowback, then shouldn’t angry Iranians have made their way to London and Washington, DC and NYC to kill some random Brits and Americans to express their dissatisfaction with those governments?

    Can you list those events when angry Iranians stormed the US Capitol, or Downing Street, or the Empire State building?

    Well…. not exactly….

    otoh, there was an enormous influx of Iranians to USA in the years following the overthrow of Mossadegh: Iranians formed the largest cohort of foreign nationals at American universities up until 1979, when the Iranian people removed the Shah and reclaimed their own government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    Hi Solonto,

    To be clear, when I said "Boy did it ever" in terms of resulting "blowback", I meant "blowback" in the sense of the original 1950's CIA internal usage, which was simply when there were unanticipated, adverse results from covert operations. The overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953, and then putting in the Shah, that ultimately led to the rise to power of the Ayatollah Khomeini, which presumably, was not what the U.S. wanted. So that is "blowback" in terms of the original CIA internal usage.

    The way the term "blowback" is used currently, basically as a shorthand for "blowback terrorism", yes, that would be angry Iranians (in this case) showing up to New York and blowing up stuff. And, of course, that never happened! Just like angry Cambodians and Vietnamese never did shit, angry Salvadorans and Nicaraguans never did squat, and so on....

    In fact, I call that, the "theory of blowback terrorism" a TITT. And TITTs are always bullshit. To all intents and purposes, the "blowback terrorism" phenomenon does not really exist. 9/11 and the rest of these deep events are almost certainly false flags.

    It may be that I was a bit unclear in what I wrote. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify what I meant.

  153. @SolontoCroesus

    Said documents expressed the concern that the CIA operation to overthrow the government of Mossadegh in Iran could lead to “blowback”. (Boy, did it ever!)
     
    and

    So, if “blowback terrorism” is a real, important phenomenon, the British Empire should have had a huge “blowback” problem, no? Surely angry Indians or Africans or Arabs were plotting how they would make their way to London and kill some random Brits to express their dissatisfaction with British government policies, no? And surely, the local authorities in the home country of Britain were on constant guard against this “blowback”, right?
     
    IF the overthrow of Mossadegh led to "Boy did it ever exclamation point" blowback, then shouldn't angry Iranians have made their way to London and Washington, DC and NYC to kill some random Brits and Americans to express their dissatisfaction with those governments?

    Can you list those events when angry Iranians stormed the US Capitol, or Downing Street, or the Empire State building?

    Well…. not exactly….
     
    otoh, there was an enormous influx of Iranians to USA in the years following the overthrow of Mossadegh: Iranians formed the largest cohort of foreign nationals at American universities up until 1979, when the Iranian people removed the Shah and reclaimed their own government.

    Hi Solonto,

    To be clear, when I said “Boy did it ever” in terms of resulting “blowback”, I meant “blowback” in the sense of the original 1950′s CIA internal usage, which was simply when there were unanticipated, adverse results from covert operations. The overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953, and then putting in the Shah, that ultimately led to the rise to power of the Ayatollah Khomeini, which presumably, was not what the U.S. wanted. So that is “blowback” in terms of the original CIA internal usage.

    The way the term “blowback” is used currently, basically as a shorthand for “blowback terrorism”, yes, that would be angry Iranians (in this case) showing up to New York and blowing up stuff. And, of course, that never happened! Just like angry Cambodians and Vietnamese never did shit, angry Salvadorans and Nicaraguans never did squat, and so on….

    In fact, I call that, the “theory of blowback terrorism” a TITT. And TITTs are always bullshit. To all intents and purposes, the “blowback terrorism” phenomenon does not really exist. 9/11 and the rest of these deep events are almost certainly false flags.

    It may be that I was a bit unclear in what I wrote. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify what I meant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Assassination of Lincoln was not blow-back, OK.

    JFK getting clipped was nothing to do with Operation Mongoose, nothing at all?

    , @iffen
    Have you noticed any technological changes since the 1950's, particularly in the communications field. Also, it seems to me that international air travel has picked up in the last few decades.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    hey Jonathan, thanks for the response and clarification.

    I wonder tho -- is what followed the overthrow of Mossadegh "blowback" or is it, more appropriately, unintended consequences? I vote for the latter.

    Maybe, even, Kermit Roosevelt & company engaged in the exercise heedless of consequences: Kermit and his co-shit-stirrers were not the world's deepest thinkers; they were in it for the adventure: Kermit was deeply imbued with the romance of Lawrence of Arabia; Kermit wanted to be the romantic hero. Said another way, creating chaos gave meaning to Kermit's otherwise LeBon-defined meaningless existence. The same notion can be applied to many of the neocons -- like Max Boot, and Ledeen, and the combined Kagan tonnage -- they crave excitement like a manic depressive on a high, and find they are able to create it with their pens.

    --
    re your statement about WWII and: "the Jewish lobby, a.k.a. the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC, to use the term of James Petras)"

    I don't know if Petras slices and dices the "ZPC," but I think it's a useful exercise to recognize that Polish (including Lithuanian, etc.) Jews and Russian (especially Bolshevik) Jews had vastly different histories, characteristics, commitments to zionism, and standing in their respective non-Jewish European communities than did German Jews, French & British Jews, Ottoman Jews, Mizrahi Jews, and American Jews. They were vastly different peoples. German Jews were the least zionist, the least inclined to war, oh, and the wealthiest: in the early 1930s, the continued existence of the zionist project in Palestine depended upon the support of German Jewish wealth. As noted, German Jews were least inclined to give that support: Gov. Weld having made a fool of himself today re Kristallnacht, it's useful to prod this Unz audience to examine carefully the timeline as well as the pattern of provocation -- reaction involved in the entire Kristallnacht event. There are several truisms to absorb:
    1. Zionist agents were active in Germany, attempting to induce German Jews to leave Germany;
    2. Hitler was appalled by the attacks on Jewish businesses and did all he could to stop it;
    3. Goebbels instructed German law enforcement to stand down and allow Germans to rampage, but only within defined limits in extent and in time -- the rioting was permitted to continue for less than a day.
    Inasmuch as zionists/ the ZPC benefited from Kristallnacht, while Germany was only further demonized by it, it's not implausible to suppose that the zionists who were active in Germany played some role in setting off the riots. It's irrefutable that Herschel Grynszpan killed vom Rath, with the full support of the ZPG: Dorothy Thompson, who was at that time still in the good graces of the ZPG, wrote in defense of the poor Polish teenager and set up a defense fund for his benefit.

    Polish Jews had a long reputation of nastiness and double-dealing. It's also the case that Germany was far more prosperous and prepared to take advantage of the benefits of industrialization than was Poland; each nation had been home to Jews for several centuries by the time of the industrial revolution, but Poland was not prepared politically to participate; Prusso-Germany was, and after German unification in 1871, other East European Jews began to flock to join their brethren in Germany to take advantage of those political and economic developments, to the detriment of indigenous Germans.
    It's worth noting that most of Israel's current Likud leadership is of East European origin, as are most of the leading neocons.

  154. Sean says:
    @Jonathan Revusky
    Hi Solonto,

    To be clear, when I said "Boy did it ever" in terms of resulting "blowback", I meant "blowback" in the sense of the original 1950's CIA internal usage, which was simply when there were unanticipated, adverse results from covert operations. The overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953, and then putting in the Shah, that ultimately led to the rise to power of the Ayatollah Khomeini, which presumably, was not what the U.S. wanted. So that is "blowback" in terms of the original CIA internal usage.

    The way the term "blowback" is used currently, basically as a shorthand for "blowback terrorism", yes, that would be angry Iranians (in this case) showing up to New York and blowing up stuff. And, of course, that never happened! Just like angry Cambodians and Vietnamese never did shit, angry Salvadorans and Nicaraguans never did squat, and so on....

    In fact, I call that, the "theory of blowback terrorism" a TITT. And TITTs are always bullshit. To all intents and purposes, the "blowback terrorism" phenomenon does not really exist. 9/11 and the rest of these deep events are almost certainly false flags.

    It may be that I was a bit unclear in what I wrote. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify what I meant.

    Assassination of Lincoln was not blow-back, OK.

    JFK getting clipped was nothing to do with Operation Mongoose, nothing at all?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Assassination of Lincoln was not blow-back, OK.
     
    Well, no, Sean. This is not something that bears any real resemblance to the events we are talking about. If John Wilkes Booth and his pals had shown up in the theater and started indiscriminately killing all the regular folks in the theater, then it would begin to resemble some of these recent alleged "blowback" events. But that isn't what happened.

    Actually, what is notable is that in the Lincoln assassination, they kill Lincoln, and do not target any of the innocent people in the theater. In these recent events attributed to blowback, the "terrorists" attack ordinary people and never target anybody of any political importance. This is a complete reversal. So, there is something odd going on here, no?

    JFK getting clipped was nothing to do with Operation Mongoose, nothing at all?
     
    Well, again, if they had just been shooting into the crowd in Dallas indiscriminately, that would begin to resemble these terrorist incidents. In any case, what's up here? I thought you would be one of the people who simply believed that a lone nut named Oswald showed up and killed the president for no obvious reason. You don't think that's what happened? ;-)
  155. iffen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky
    Hi Solonto,

    To be clear, when I said "Boy did it ever" in terms of resulting "blowback", I meant "blowback" in the sense of the original 1950's CIA internal usage, which was simply when there were unanticipated, adverse results from covert operations. The overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953, and then putting in the Shah, that ultimately led to the rise to power of the Ayatollah Khomeini, which presumably, was not what the U.S. wanted. So that is "blowback" in terms of the original CIA internal usage.

    The way the term "blowback" is used currently, basically as a shorthand for "blowback terrorism", yes, that would be angry Iranians (in this case) showing up to New York and blowing up stuff. And, of course, that never happened! Just like angry Cambodians and Vietnamese never did shit, angry Salvadorans and Nicaraguans never did squat, and so on....

    In fact, I call that, the "theory of blowback terrorism" a TITT. And TITTs are always bullshit. To all intents and purposes, the "blowback terrorism" phenomenon does not really exist. 9/11 and the rest of these deep events are almost certainly false flags.

    It may be that I was a bit unclear in what I wrote. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify what I meant.

    Have you noticed any technological changes since the 1950′s, particularly in the communications field. Also, it seems to me that international air travel has picked up in the last few decades.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Have you noticed any technological changes since the 1950′s, particularly in the communications field. Also, it seems to me that international air travel has picked up in the last few decades.
     
    That it is easier to travel to the other side of the world than it was before could maybe be an explanation for there having been less blowback terrorism then than now. It still would not explain why there was absolutely none.

    The fact remains that a determined person could still travel to London or Paris or New York and do something in the 1950's or even in the 1920's. They just never did.

    Also, you have no explanation for cases where there were already large emigre populations in the U.S. and no blowback whatsoever, such as refugees from Central America in the 1980's.

    No, the conspicuous fact is that the blowback theory of terrorism simply does not fit the available facts. There are many prior episodes where, if that theory was correct, there should have been lots of terrorist acts, but there were none. Not just that there was very little. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. The fact that travel became easier is not a sufficient explanation.
  156. @helena
    I think the Irish question is very interesting. From observation, the backbone of opinion in favour of immigration into the UK has been the 'Im descended from immigrants' trope that is rolled out by Irish catholic-heritage, as well as Jewish heritage, 'white British'. The protestant Irish-heritage people that I know (not many) do not like immigration. The Jewish-heritage 'IDFM' has disappeared in context of Syrian refugees but Irish-heritage seem to be still open-border-minded for England. The troubles are kicking off again. The southern Irish really do want their country back in tact. The northern irish are germanic people from English borders. It isn't possible to distinguish all Irish but there is a 'colleen' look typical of SIrish women.

    what does idfm mean?

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    I'm descended from immigrants. It's what open-borders supporters say in the uk, whether sitting on the platform or in the audience, their second sentence after opening with, 'there's loads of room still in this country' or 'migrants are good for the economy', is invariably, 'my parents/grandparents came here from ireland/pakistan/uganda/bangladesh/ww2'. Did you know that kindertransport survivors have joined together to try and get the unaccompanied children living in the Calais camp into Britain, when the Brit Govt already declined to take them. The kindertransport chaps went out to visit the children and share their migration/refugee stories. One chap who was interviewed said 'we helped children in 19whatever so we should help children now'. It's the use of 'we' that surprised me - shouldn't he have said 'Britain helped children in 19whatever so I think Britain should help children now'? Sorry, I haven't memorised the exact date. I obviously need more ww2 education.
  157. helena says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    what does idfm mean?

    I’m descended from immigrants. It’s what open-borders supporters say in the uk, whether sitting on the platform or in the audience, their second sentence after opening with, ‘there’s loads of room still in this country’ or ‘migrants are good for the economy’, is invariably, ‘my parents/grandparents came here from ireland/pakistan/uganda/bangladesh/ww2′. Did you know that kindertransport survivors have joined together to try and get the unaccompanied children living in the Calais camp into Britain, when the Brit Govt already declined to take them. The kindertransport chaps went out to visit the children and share their migration/refugee stories. One chap who was interviewed said ‘we helped children in 19whatever so we should help children now’. It’s the use of ‘we’ that surprised me – shouldn’t he have said ‘Britain helped children in 19whatever so I think Britain should help children now’? Sorry, I haven’t memorised the exact date. I obviously need more ww2 education.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Thank you, helena.

    It's basically a position based on emotion -- not even emotion; something more like sentimentality.
  158. @This Is Our Home
    It's a high school word...

    It’s a high school word…

    You really have me wondering. One would think that you seriously believe that I don’t know what the word “epistemology” means. And you really think that you can whip out some six-syllable word and wow people with it, this is the sophomoric level you are operating at. If that is the case, there is just not a glimmer of understanding on your part of just how out of your depth you are.

    Regardless, dude, you’ve had your fun. Now do piss off.

    Note to the Gallery

    I am still trying to figure out what the best way of dealing with this kind of troll is. I am not inclined to just perpetually maintain some polite facade with these people. I just don’t see the point.

    I’m still just a guest contributor and have no moderation capability. If I did, I would just delete this guy’s messages in a heartbeat. Same as this Geokat asshole, for example. Iffen as well. I believe in free speech, probably more than most people do, but that does not mean pretending that I think that all speech has value! And it can’t mean letting bad-faithed trolls disrupt what could be a serious, interesting conversation.

    The real problem is that the time I spend engaging with readers in this comments section, the vast majority of it really should be with people who are here in good faith and really trying to develop some real discussion and learn some things. I can’t just let these bad-faithed people suck up all my time here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @This Is Our Home
    You offer no explanation for 9/11. You only look at the normal account and say that things look awfully coincidental and therefore they must be wrong, and therefore your insane world view is proven.

    Your fall-back is some silly claim that the burden of proof is on those proposing the account. This is a middle school argument against God, made even worse by being poorly re-purposed. It is not a serious line to take.

    The problem is that such a high standard of proof for believing in explanations of complex events leads to believing in none, and that is the solipsistic trap. Furthermore you know, although can't seem to bring yourself to admit it to yourself, that this very same standard of proof, if applied to your theory of 9/11, would make you look even more ridiculous than the random internet crackpot that you are.

    Offer an account of 9/11 or shut up. No blathering on about the normal account and how you're too thick to understand it either.

    , @NoseytheDuke
    I for one have enjoyed reading your contributions and hope you'll continue. I think deleting the moronic responses would be a mistake since this is The Unz Review. Better to respond in a brief manner while mustering all of the respect that they deserve and thus allow the fools to reveal themselves as such. Cheers.
  159. @iffen
    Have you noticed any technological changes since the 1950's, particularly in the communications field. Also, it seems to me that international air travel has picked up in the last few decades.

    Have you noticed any technological changes since the 1950′s, particularly in the communications field. Also, it seems to me that international air travel has picked up in the last few decades.

    That it is easier to travel to the other side of the world than it was before could maybe be an explanation for there having been less blowback terrorism then than now. It still would not explain why there was absolutely none.

    The fact remains that a determined person could still travel to London or Paris or New York and do something in the 1950′s or even in the 1920′s. They just never did.

    Also, you have no explanation for cases where there were already large emigre populations in the U.S. and no blowback whatsoever, such as refugees from Central America in the 1980′s.

    No, the conspicuous fact is that the blowback theory of terrorism simply does not fit the available facts. There are many prior episodes where, if that theory was correct, there should have been lots of terrorist acts, but there were none. Not just that there was very little. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. The fact that travel became easier is not a sufficient explanation.

    Read More
  160. @Sean
    Assassination of Lincoln was not blow-back, OK.

    JFK getting clipped was nothing to do with Operation Mongoose, nothing at all?

    Assassination of Lincoln was not blow-back, OK.

    Well, no, Sean. This is not something that bears any real resemblance to the events we are talking about. If John Wilkes Booth and his pals had shown up in the theater and started indiscriminately killing all the regular folks in the theater, then it would begin to resemble some of these recent alleged “blowback” events. But that isn’t what happened.

    Actually, what is notable is that in the Lincoln assassination, they kill Lincoln, and do not target any of the innocent people in the theater. In these recent events attributed to blowback, the “terrorists” attack ordinary people and never target anybody of any political importance. This is a complete reversal. So, there is something odd going on here, no?

    JFK getting clipped was nothing to do with Operation Mongoose, nothing at all?

    Well, again, if they had just been shooting into the crowd in Dallas indiscriminately, that would begin to resemble these terrorist incidents. In any case, what’s up here? I thought you would be one of the people who simply believed that a lone nut named Oswald showed up and killed the president for no obvious reason. You don’t think that’s what happened? ;-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    There were attempts to whack Castro, and then JFK got the top of his head shot off, so for that assassination, blowback is not untenable at first blush.

    Mongoose included mass indiscriminate killings of a terrorist-style nature in Cuba. It would seem you think the USA is immune to such things, even though they had demonstrated the feasibility of them in no uncertain manner.

  161. @Jonathan Revusky

    It’s a high school word…
     
    You really have me wondering. One would think that you seriously believe that I don't know what the word "epistemology" means. And you really think that you can whip out some six-syllable word and wow people with it, this is the sophomoric level you are operating at. If that is the case, there is just not a glimmer of understanding on your part of just how out of your depth you are.

    Regardless, dude, you've had your fun. Now do piss off.

    Note to the Gallery

    I am still trying to figure out what the best way of dealing with this kind of troll is. I am not inclined to just perpetually maintain some polite facade with these people. I just don't see the point.

    I'm still just a guest contributor and have no moderation capability. If I did, I would just delete this guy's messages in a heartbeat. Same as this Geokat asshole, for example. Iffen as well. I believe in free speech, probably more than most people do, but that does not mean pretending that I think that all speech has value! And it can't mean letting bad-faithed trolls disrupt what could be a serious, interesting conversation.

    The real problem is that the time I spend engaging with readers in this comments section, the vast majority of it really should be with people who are here in good faith and really trying to develop some real discussion and learn some things. I can't just let these bad-faithed people suck up all my time here.

    You offer no explanation for 9/11. You only look at the normal account and say that things look awfully coincidental and therefore they must be wrong, and therefore your insane world view is proven.

    Your fall-back is some silly claim that the burden of proof is on those proposing the account. This is a middle school argument against God, made even worse by being poorly re-purposed. It is not a serious line to take.

    The problem is that such a high standard of proof for believing in explanations of complex events leads to believing in none, and that is the solipsistic trap. Furthermore you know, although can’t seem to bring yourself to admit it to yourself, that this very same standard of proof, if applied to your theory of 9/11, would make you look even more ridiculous than the random internet crackpot that you are.

    Offer an account of 9/11 or shut up. No blathering on about the normal account and how you’re too thick to understand it either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Fool! The official account of what happened on 9/11 is simply impossible therefore there has to be an examination of theories leading to a plausible and probable explanation that is vastly different to what the government claims happened.

    Starting questions to ask would be, who benefitted from the attacks? Who had the means to bypass the various levels of security and perpetrate what happened? Who had the means to insert the false narrative into the mass media, immediately? Who had the means to control the investigation and affect a cover-up?

    There are numerous videos of firemen describing multiple explosions taking place prior to the collapses and many of these can be seen when viewing videos of the collapses.
    , @Erebus
    Homey,

    Did you ever notice that in a criminal case, the attorney for the defence is never obliged to propose, much less prove, who dunnit ? All he has to do, ever, is to show that the prosecution has not proven the guilt of his client.

    The point being made, in case it escaped you, is that the prosecution in the 9/11 case (namely, the government) has not made even a remotely plausible, much less an iron-clad, case against those it accused of the crime. That is, their case is devoid of even one of plausible means, motive, and opportunity. Any honest court would dismiss the government's case out of hand. In fact it wouldn't get past any Prosecutor's secretary. Why is an alternative theory needed to understand that?

    Besides, the fact is that another theory has been proposed, at least tangentially, in the writings above, but perhaps that also escaped your notice.
    Namely, the theory touched on in numerous places above says that the buildings were collapsed by extra-energetic means, aka professionally placed explosive & incendiary charges. Unlike the government theory, this theory enjoys the support of forensic results, and for which means, motive and opportunity have been explicated. To be sure, it lacks the identities of the perpetrators though the identities of at least some of the accomplices are a matter of public record.

  162. Sean says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Assassination of Lincoln was not blow-back, OK.
     
    Well, no, Sean. This is not something that bears any real resemblance to the events we are talking about. If John Wilkes Booth and his pals had shown up in the theater and started indiscriminately killing all the regular folks in the theater, then it would begin to resemble some of these recent alleged "blowback" events. But that isn't what happened.

    Actually, what is notable is that in the Lincoln assassination, they kill Lincoln, and do not target any of the innocent people in the theater. In these recent events attributed to blowback, the "terrorists" attack ordinary people and never target anybody of any political importance. This is a complete reversal. So, there is something odd going on here, no?

    JFK getting clipped was nothing to do with Operation Mongoose, nothing at all?
     
    Well, again, if they had just been shooting into the crowd in Dallas indiscriminately, that would begin to resemble these terrorist incidents. In any case, what's up here? I thought you would be one of the people who simply believed that a lone nut named Oswald showed up and killed the president for no obvious reason. You don't think that's what happened? ;-)

    There were attempts to whack Castro, and then JFK got the top of his head shot off, so for that assassination, blowback is not untenable at first blush.

    Mongoose included mass indiscriminate killings of a terrorist-style nature in Cuba. It would seem you think the USA is immune to such things, even though they had demonstrated the feasibility of them in no uncertain manner.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    There were attempts to whack Castro, and then JFK got the top of his head shot off, so for that assassination, blowback is not untenable at first blush.
     
    Sean, there is a vast literature about the JFK assassination at this point in time. If you want to learn about it, you should go read some of it. In particular, the James Douglass book is quite good, JFK and the Unspeakable. But there are others.

    The JFK hit was most certainly not "blowback". It was an inside job. By the way, the head of the CIA Operations Directorate, Cord Meyer, had an extra reason to want to get Kennedy. This was because Kennedy was fucking his wife. I almost hesitate to say that, because it sounds so much like pulp fiction, but you can look it up. It's true. Google "Mary Pinchot Meyer". I just mention that because it's such a striking case of real life imitating fiction!

    It's not just Cord Meyer, but other names of people involved are known. David Sanchez Morales, a major CIA operative. Also E. Howard Hunt, later one of the Watergate burglars. Hunt actually made a deathbed confession regarding his own involvement and named some names, among them Meyer and Morales, said LBJ was in on it. There are other names that I don't recollect at this moment.... Go read up on it if you are interested.

    There is no reasonable dispute about the broad outlines of this at this point in history. The JFK assassination was not "blowback", it was an inside job.

    In any case, a point to understand here is that this article and the last one are only peripherally about the deep events themselves -- JFK, 9/11 etcetera. The articles are really about the propaganda matrix and I mention these deep events peripherally, yes.

    There are people who affect the position here that there is some onus on me to explain 9/11 in arbitrary detail to them. But, no, for the purpose of my articles, the important thing to understand is that the official narrative is complete, unmitigated BULLSHIT. This has definitely been established every which way to Sunday. They claim that WTC 7 caught fire and, after burning in a completely uncontrolled manner, imploded in a perfectly symmetrical way into its own footprint. This is, of course, impossible. I am also satisfied that the magic bullet theory espoused in the Warren Commission report is also, to all intents and purposes impossible.

    So, this essay and the previous one are really about analyzing the willingness of people to believe in these things, as well as how the establishment-aligned commentariat espouses all this bullshit and the tactics they use. That's what these articles are about. But, again, if you specifically want to learn about JFK or about 9/11 or these other events, by all means, go learn about them from the appropriate sources. I have actually never presented myself as being an expert in these matters.
  163. […] vinden, er hangt een lucht van sociale besmetting omheen. Maar hoe terecht is dat? Lees dit artikel ‘A Framework for Reclaiming Reality’ en zet je geest open, bevrijd jezelf van de sociale druk die aan woorden is gehangen door negatieve […]

    Read More
  164. geokat62 says:

    In addition to the 11 if/then statements, perhaps you could also address this little dilemma:

    The Twin Towers weren’t conventional demolitions. They were “top down” demolitions, which are rare in the professional demolition industry. This was achieved by strategically planting and detonating explosives beneath each tower’s predetermined impact zone. This was done to create the illusion that airliner impacts caused the towers to fall.

    Building 7 was a classic demolition job — bottom up — the type of demolition that Danny Jowenko is qualified to give his professional opinion on.

    I think the record is clear that you think that all 3 bldgs were brought down by CD on 9/11, right? Given that 3 out of the 4 airplanes struck their intended targets, most assume the intended target of flight 93 was bldg 7. I think Rurik is on record suggesting so. So here’s my question: why would the planners use a top-down approach with the Twin Towers so as to not make it appear that it was a CD, but use a bottom-up approach with bldg 7, which would give things away? I mean why didn’t they strategically plant and detonate the explosives beneath this bldg’s predetermined impact zone. An speaking of impact zones, how did the planners know which floors the airplanes would impact? And if they could know this information, I guess this implies that they expected flight 93 to hit the first few floors of bldg 7, a very challenging endeavor given Manhattan’s skyline.

    Hey, but I guess all this is just meaningless inquiry, better ban these types of comments so you can continue having a more ” serious, interesting conversation.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Your question isn't meaningless just close to it. You are trying to get an answer to a detail or two that doesn't really affect the main issue which is, If the official account is BS, and it is, then why is it so and who was behind the deception?
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    In addition to the 11 if/then statements, perhaps you could also address this little dilemma:
     
    This whole line of questioning is just completely illegitimate. Obviously, I'm not going to answer any detailed technical questions about the demolition of the buildings.

    Now, I shouldn't bother to explain what I am about to explain, because really, it's obvious, but, just to cover the bases, I'll explain it....

    Look, unless you are really a specialist in a field, you understand things at the appropriate level at which you need to understand them.

    Take smoking, for example. I believe that I can state with absolute confidence that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer. I believe there is an overwhelming body of evidence for this conclusion. However, if you asked me to tell you the mechanism for this at the cellular level, with all kinds of detail, I could not do so, no. I might say: "Breathing all that shit into your lungs every day is bound to be bad for your health."That's my level of understanding. If you want a more detailed explanation, go to some science website that explains it. Go to the nearest research university and interview a real expert...

    In short, I am not an M.D./ph.D. cancer researcher but I can still say that smoking cigarettes is very bad for you and tends to cause cancer. A regular schmo with generalist knowledge can know this!

    Take the Kennedy assassination. We have the video of a man being shot. You want to start asking me gun nerd questions like what caliber of bullet was used or the exact characteristics of the entry/exit wounds and blah blah. Fine, and then, when I say I lack the specialized knowledge, then what? Are you going to tell me that Kennedy wasn't shot! That's just ridiculous but that's the kind of bullshit you are peddling here.

    It's offensive because it's such an insult to anybody's intelligence.

    We have the controlled demolition of WTC building 7 on video from various angles. The fact that I can't tell you specific details about what explosive devices were used and so on is of no relevance. The only thing that looks exactly like a controlled demolition is, in fact, a controlled demolition. Period. There is no animal that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck and so on... THAT IS NOT IN FACT A DUCK! You don't need a phD. in zoology to identify a duck when you see one!

    Moreover, you have already tried to make hay out of the fact that I am not a specialist in the relevant technical fields. And I have not represented that I am. So why are you asking these questions? It reeks of bad faith. If you really wanted to know the answer to such questions, you would go to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and ask questions there. But no, you ask me the question, when it's already established that I lack the relevant expertise!

    So all of your participation here reeks of bad faith. You're willing to ask me for my "credentials" while you yourself are anonymous! Or you are willing to provide this list of detailed questions, but if I ask you the basic question, what evidence exists for the official story, you refuse to answer. It cannot work like this.

    Hey, but I guess all this is just meaningless inquiry, better ban these types of comments so you can continue having a more ” serious, interesting conversation.”
     
    I have said openly that if I had the means to do it, I probably would ban you, not for asking questions per se, no.... the issue is that it is so beyond obvious that you do not participate in good faith, and it is just not practical to expend this much time responding to your bullshit.

    Now, all that said, there is an article up top there and the purpose of the comment section is, in principle, to discuss the article. I wrote 9400 words and if you have some question about something I said or some objection to an argument I made in the article, if you bring it up and it's a good-faithed question, I would still answer you. Just for example, in comment #154, Solonto asked me a question about something I said in the article, which actually, may be a bit confusing. And I answered.

    But this kind of crap, asking me detailed questions that are not really relevant anyway (equivalent to what kind of bullets were used in