The Unz Review - Mobile

The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection

A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Jonathan Revusky Archive
Battling the Matrix and Freeing Oneself from the Roger Rabbit Mental World

Email This Page to Someone


 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_193613900

In 1999, a big hit movie was The Matrix. I went and saw it but I don’t recall it making much of an impression on me. At the time, my understanding of the world was pretty conventional. I believed the things I was told — for example, that a lone nut by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald had shot President Kennedy, and another lone gunman named James Earl Ray later shot Martin Luther King. Of course 9/11 hadn’t happened yet, but, when it did, a couple of years later, I assumed that the official story was broadly true. In retrospect, I am not sure whether, at the time, I even knew the term “false flag terrorism”. Probably not. In general, I believed that the way to stay informed about world events was to watch CNN and the BBC or read the New York Times. I also held rather typical mainstream liberal/progressive views that a North American university graduate would hold. In short, I was a typical overeducated idiot.

Not very long ago, since it was linked on a web page, I watched the famous red pill scene again and it was a shock. I thought: “But my God, that’s… that’s… absolutely uncanny!”

So much had happened in the intervening decade and a half, and I had undergone such an intellectual evolution that, of course, my reaction to the scene was bound to be very different. It was really thought provoking.

On further consideration, though, I realized that, as compelling as the red pill scene is, it still basically begs the question. In the real world, there is no such red pill, either at the local pharmacy or from the neighborhood drug pusher. So, how would a real-world Morpheus get Neo to perceive the Matrix that surrounds them?

You see, the red pill is basically a sort of deus ex machina. The character takes the pill and voilà! If you think about it, it’s understandable that they introduce such a plot device. That way, the film avoids having to explain how the characters came to perceive the Matrix. Actually I can’t even imagine offhand how the movie would go about explaining that, but if it did, it would end up being a very different sort of film, much more complex and psychological. Too intellectual. It would bore most people. This way, the character wakes up without taking too much time away that could be better used in slick martial arts scenes, which are, after all, what most moviegoers want to see.

Another interesting aspect of this is that, in the moral universe of the Matrix, the character must choose the red pill of his own free will. Morpheus gives Neo the whole spiel and Neo has to decide. Okay, obviously we know he’ll choose the red pill because if he chose the blue one, the movie would be over before it had hardly started. But he is offered the choice. If Neo had chosen the blue pill, the other characters weren’t going to jump him and pin him down and force him to ingest the red pill. Though, actually, come to think of it, for all we know, that was the backup plan. But no, I’m pretty sure that the ethos of the Matrix is that a person must consciously choose the red pill. In other words, people have the right to delude themselves.

Another movie that came out a decade before that, the John Carpenter film “They Live”, has a similar theme, where the characters perceive a reality that others don’t. Like the Matrix, it has a deus ex machina plot device that “explains” how the characters come to perceive the nature of the world they are in. Instead of the red pill, it’s these special sunglasses.

But there is a very basic difference in a somewhat analogous scene. When the main character in “They Live” wants his best buddy to see reality, i.e. put on the sunglasses, the friend adamantly refuses. However, the protagonist won’t take no for an answer and a really violent broken down fight ensues. Finally the main character forces his friend, kicking and screaming (and punching and head-butting), to put on the sunglasses and see reality.

This crazy fight scene is also something that I perceive very differently watching it now than when I first saw it many years back. On the superficial level, the scene makes no sense. You just think: this is silly, nobody would go to such lengths to avoid trying on a pair of sunglasses. He would just humor his friend and try them on before it got to anything like that! On a deeper level, though, once one understands what the sunglasses represent, one cannot help but feel that, as over-the-top as the scene is, it is, on some level, far more realistic than the Matrix red pill scene. The adamant refusal of the character in “They Live” to put on the sunglasses is actually far more like the way people in the real world behave than when Neo eagerly grabs the red pill in the Matrix. It would be even more realistic if, instead of shouting “you crazy Mother” while fighting to avoid putting on the sunglasses, the character shouted instead: “You crazy conspiracy theorist!” (In fact, the “conspiracy theorist” label is the most basic weapon of these reality avoiders and this essay will address this question later.)

BDQ, high IQ idiocy, and the Ludek Pachman Moment (LPM)

Getting back to the real world, we still have the observable fact that some people perceive the propaganda matrix and others are oblivious to it, and we don’t have any red pills or sunglasses to explain this. Just as some people get calculus and others don’t, some people see through the bullshit and others don’t. That’s pretty clear…

Now, when it comes to calculus or other academic subjects, we have IQ; we say the higher IQ people do better at school, or at least it comes easier to them. However, the ability to see through the propaganda, bullshit generally speaking, does not seem to have much (if anything) to do with IQ. There are people with a very high IQ who are just completely helpless when it comes to seeing through the propaganda. The technical term for such a person is HIQI, or “high IQ idiot”. The term is not really as contradictory as it seems, since, properly understood, there is another kind of intelligence in play than IQ, that allows people to see through the bullshit. The technical term we shall use for this is BDQ, which stands for Bullshit Detection Quotient. The term “high IQ idiot” does not originate in this essay. A quick google search reveals prior usage here and there, but this essay may be the first to provide a formal definition of the concept:

A “high IQ idiot” is somebody with a combination of high IQ and very low BDQ.

There is an event that I recall from a book that I read a long time ago that, I think, illustrates the concept quite nicely. It’s a rather obscure book, probably out of print now, entitled “Checkmate in Prague”. The author was a chess grandmaster named Ludek Pachman. I read the book back in my teens when I was a fanatical chess player. It’s partly a memoir of the author’s chess career but is mostly a political memoir of his time in Czechoslovakia under communist rule and it culminates in his defection to the West some time in the early 1970’s.

The event I have in mind goes like this: Ludek’s housekeeper is going off to the market to buy some food. As she is going out, Ludek tells her that he would prefer that she not buy pork. You see, Ludek had read some sort of popular science article that warned of how unhealthy it was to eat pork. He was concerned that he was eating too much pork and would prefer for her to buy beef or chicken instead.

His housekeeper, surely not a very educated woman, responded: “Oh, that is all nonsense, Mr. Pachman. They are telling us that pork is unhealthy because, at the moment, there is a severe shortage of pork and they don’t want people to notice.”

Ludek took this as an example of the kinds of misguided notions that uneducated people engage in. (I don’t believe he used the term “conspiracy theory”.) For Ludek, it was completely unthinkable that scientists would write an article like that saying that pork was unhealthy if there was not some real evidence that it was.

Well, some months after this, Ludek was reading some popular science article and the article was extolling the health benefits of pork. Now, apparently, pork was by far the healthiest meat, much better for you than beef or chicken. It struck Ludek as rather odd that the scientific consensus on this could change so quickly. Ludek looked into the question and discovered that, now there was a huge oversupply of pork. It seems that the authorities had overreacted to the previous shortage and now there was more pork than anybody knew what to do with. Thus, the authorities were desperately trying to increase the demand for pork by putting out articles telling everybody how healthy it was.

Many readers might chuckle at the above story, not think that it is very consequential. After all, when you think of the various abuses committed in communist regimes, a few porkies about pork surely do not rank very high. Nonetheless, this incident really did shock poor Ludek, and was, as I recall, one of the key events that caused him to turn against the communist regime and, ultimately, to defect to the West. He just really disliked living in such a corrupt, mendacious society, in which everything was a lie. (Whether Ludek was right to assume that the West was much better is another fascinating question, but is beyond the scope of this essay.)

Now, what I would point out about this story is that Ludek almost certainly had a much higher IQ than his housekeeper. And he was also far more educated. However, his housekeeper immediately knew that these articles appearing in the press — denigrating (and later extolling) the eating of pork — were bullshit, while Ludek was taken in by them. In short, Ludek’s housekeeper had a much higher BDQ than Ludek did.

Since I feel that the foregoing anecdote is such a good basic example of a certain phenomenon, I shall introduce some new terminology. This kind of realisation that Ludek has, when he sees how naive he has been and that his uneducated housekeeper, in a very basic way, is actually smarter than he is — let us call this a Ludek Pachman moment, or LPM for short.

I believe that, for people who belong to what we could broadly call the Deep Politics Community or the Truth Community, the LPM is a very basic recurring theme. For example, Ron Unz has published a series of articles under the rubric of “American Pravda” in which he documents just how unreliable the American (and really, Western) media is. The facts that Ron documents are indeed compelling, but the articles can also be looked at another way: you see, besides just covering various factual material, he is recounting his own personal intellectual journey, his own personal “Ludek Pachman moment”, or perhaps really a series of LPM‘s.

About a year ago, Jeff Brown wrote an article about what he calls the Great Western Firewall. He outlines at great length a series of facts, but properly understood, I would say that Jeff is also describing his own LPM. While Jeff Brown outlines a completely different series of facts in GWF than Ron Unz in AP, one could say that, in deep structure, if you will, they are broadly the same. In each case, the author is describing his own LPM, or a series of LPM‘s that constitute an overall awakening.

The reason that I found the aforementioned articles by Ron Unz and Jeff Brown so compelling is that I myself went on a similar journey and it is still fairly recent. I surmise that the people who react negatively to those articles (and I recall that Jeff Brown’s GWF article got a lot of negative comments) are people who have not (yet) had their own LPM. I guess the most basic diagnostic self-test in this regard is that if you believe that the way you get educated about the world is to watch CNN and BBC and read the New York Times, then you have not yet had your own LPM. And certainly, if you still think that calling somebody a “conspiracy theorist” is some sort of meaningful insult, you are in dire need of your own Ludek Pachman Moment.

BDQ and Roger Rabbit Artefacts (RRA’s)

When I started thinking seriously about the whole BDQ issue, one aspect of it occurred to me fairly quickly. People have a strong baseline of bullshit detection capability when dealing with direct visual stimuli. By that, I mean pictures of things that are obviously absurd. For example, however low your BDQ happens to be, if somebody shows you a picture of a car with square wheels, you immediately identify this as impossible. So it stands to reason that if you want to bullshit somebody, it is easier to do so verbally than visually. I guess the issue is that a visual stimulus goes directly to some part of the cortex that, on a non-conscious, non-verbal level of reasoning, just immediately identifies the input as absurd and impossible.

Along these lines, I thought about another movie I saw a long time ago. It came out in 1987, a year before “They Live”. I am thinking of “Who framed Roger Rabbit?”. That was, I think, the first movie in which human actors interacted seamlessly with cartoon characters. (There were other attempts before, I’m sure, but I think that Roger Rabbit took this to a very polished level.) I think that Roger Rabbit, i.e. cartoons being superimposed on reality, can be a nice metaphor for thinking about these kinds of issues. In fact, I believe that many an LPM that people have undergone is when it dawns on them that some story that is presented by the media is an RRN, a Roger Rabbit narrative.

Though it was quite a technical achievement at the time, one thing is clear about this: everybody can identify which elements on the screen are cartoons and which ones are real. A cartoon building or a cartoon car just doesn’t look like a real building or a real car. And most certainly cartoon characters cannot be confused with a real human actor. So, again, when there is a direct visual stimulus like this, we all possess the wetware to identify effortlessly and immediately what is real and what is a cartoon, at least in a Roger Rabbit sort of movie in which cartoons and real people share the screen. So if we were watching one of those Bin Laden videos and some actual cartoon Arabs were to come out in the video, characters out of a Disney animated Aladdin or Sinbad, we would all presumably realize that the video is fake.

While nobody has any problem identifying a cartoon image, people frequently do have problems with a cartoon narrative. In May of 2011, in the first version of what happened in Abbottabad, Pakistan, a White House spokesman claims that Osama Bin Laden, when cornered, tried to use one of his wives as a “human shield”. They did later change the story, but this first version is a clear case of a cartoon element being overlaid onto something that is supposed to be a real event. My terminology for this is RRA, which stands for Roger Rabbit artifact.

Admittedly, since no photographic or video evidence was ever produced of this Abbottabad raid, it is not an RRA in the more literal sense of involving video fakery. (Video fakery is frequent in other hoax events, but not this one.) I still classify this as an RRA, since an event is alleged to occur that clearly emerges from a cartoon or Hollywoodian universe. You see, the “human shield” story requires Osama Bin Laden, who is ostensibly a real person in the real world, to exist mentally in a sort of cartoon universe. Upon realizing that agents of the U.S. government have arrived to liquidate him, he reasons that these are chivalrous individuals who would not shoot a woman. Therefore, he can prevent himself from being shot by getting behind a woman. People, let’s think about this: would anybody in the real world ever reason this way? Surely, anybody — and I mean outside of a Hollywood movie or comic book — on realizing that professional assassins are coming to kill him, would try to put as much distance between himself and his family members as possible. Putting them between him and the shooters would only get them needlessly killed as well!

Properly understood, it does not at all matter that the authorities later denied the human shield story. It really doesn’t, because, you see, once you identify an RRA in the narrative, even if it is later amended, you know the whole thing must be fake. This is because there is really no way that an RRA can just slip into a real event. No, there must be actual fiction writers involved! And that means that the event really must be a hoax. Why would you hire Hollywood scriptwriters, say, to write a script for something that really happened? Also, professional writers don’t write that fast. They have to have had the script written before the event (allegedly) happened!

When the story contains what is clearly an RRA, and then no actual evidence is ever provided that any of this happened, we can say that the event must be some sort of hoax. (To be clear, I don’t mean to say that nothing happened. Some operation of some sort occurred and possibly somebody was killed. Something happened but we have no way of knowing what it was! We do know, however, that whatever they say happened is not what happened!) I hereby propose a basic principle of detecting official bullshit:

If there is a single RRA in an official account, then the whole thing is an RRN.

BDQ and the ISIS Beheading Videos

It was less than a year ago that I watched one of those ISIS beheading videos for the first time. I had frequently run into claims that they were fake, but had always refrained from watching any of them. I doubt I’m the only person in this situation. After all, even if you think there is only a small chance that you will see somebody really getting beheaded, do you want to take that chance? Still the problem remains: how do you resolve the issue other than looking and seeing for yourself?

When I finally steeled myself and watched some of these videos, it was shocking. The videos were not just fake, they were comically fake! Chock full of Roger Rabbit artifacts. I have to admit that it was only afterwards that I realised something about this that should have been obvious. You see, really, the ISIS beheading videos had to be fake. In fact, some variant of this could, I think be a basic question on a BDQ test:

Does a political movement ever make propaganda films that are designed to portray themselves as villains out of a comic book?

Really, think about it. You know, even without checking, I am absolutely certain that you can go and look back at any of the propaganda films from Germany in the Nazi period or from Soviet Russia and they never portray themselves as evil. No! Of course not! They portray their enemies as comic book villains, not themselves! That these videos therefore must be fake really ought to be obvious to anybody with, let’s say, an average BDQ (which, we could say by analogy, with IQ, is 100). However, it is clear enough that, in the society in which we live, people who immediately see through the absurdity of this have much higher than the average BDQ, surely 120 or far higher, I would say. And, actually, though I am a bit ashamed to admit it, this did not immediately occur to me. I don’t know what my BDQ is currently since I have never taken a BDQ test (due to the little technical obstacle that they don’t exist). I am, however, quite certain that my BDQ is vastly higher than it was ten years ago!

Another odd aspect of these fake ISIS beheading videos is just how much of an open secret it is that they are fake. Most of the western media pretends they are real, but occasionally, somebody doesn’t get the memo, it seems. So, for example, you have this deconstruction of one of the fake videos in the British newspaper, the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2963039/Does-Isis-really-army-seven-foot-executioners-Experts-say-footage-beheading-Christians-Libya-FAKE.html

You can see the actual fake video that the article refers to here along with some analysis:

http://libyanwarthetruth.com/isis-beheading-video-libya-hoax

This article quotes an informed source that says that these fake beheading videos are probably made by some production company in California, filmed possibly in Mexico (I guess because production costs are cheaper down there) or alternatively the work was outsourced to Europe, in which case it was probably done by a Spanish company. I have no way of verifying any of the above, but it rings true. In any case, it hardly matters whether the video was filmed in Mexico, Spain, or in Timbuktu. It’s fake.

I think this particular video stars the infamous Jihadi Joseph. Jihadi Joseph, judging by his English diction, seems to have grown up in the United States. There are also Jihadi John videos. Jihadi John has an English accent. Basically, these black-clad knife waving native English speaking head slicers are stock comic book characters being portrayed by actors, thus an RRA, but the videos contain a host of other RRA’s, as you can see if you read the above-linked Daily Mail article.

All that said, properly understood, the entire video is one big Roger Rabbit artifact, a cartoon being superimposed on reality. Now it does seem that there really are these thug/mercenary/gangster types controlling large parts of Syria and Iraq. It is also possible that they do execute people, maybe even a lot of people. However, these fake videos are really a kind of cartoon element being superimposed on what is really happening in the Middle East. The people behind all of this are crafting a kind of Roger Rabbit movie.

The videos are so poor and so obviously fake that it must be that the people behind this have calculated (correctly) that very few people will actually watch the videos anyway. Besides this, and perhaps more importantly, very few western journalists will ever say openly that the videos are fake. This isn’t even a hypothesis. The Jewish-American feminist author Naomi Wolf, openly said that the beheading videos were fake and came under a very concerted character assassination attack. Here is just one example:

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/10/celebrated-feminist-author-turned-completely-insane-person-thinks-isis-beheading-videos-fake/

Ay, she has gone stark raving mad, the poor dear, claims the videos are fake. It’s so sad but hey, that’s what happens when you spend too much time conversing wit’ yer hoo hah…

But seriously, I feel that, whatever one thinks of Naomi Wolf and the third wave of feminism, whatever that is, and despite my own inability to resist making a joke at her expense, I strongly feel she should be applauded for having the ovaries to tell the truth. She didn’t have to stick her neck out and she had to know what she was in for. People come under concerted attack for telling the truth about these things. Yet, for all of that, it is so well known in certain circles that these videos are fake that they are fodder for comedy. Consider this video put out by some Israeli comedians:

The people who made this video simply take for granted that their public know that all these beheading videos are fake. I infer that anyway, because if their audience actually believed that the beheading videos were real, the skit would be outrageously tasteless. I’m not familiar with these comedians, but it really seems to me that they just assume that their entire audience is hip to the fact that all these beheading videos are fake. It may be that the targeted audience for this group’s comedy videos is a demographic with a far above-average BDQ.

Wings on Pigs: the 9/11 Narrative

Now, I have to make some comments about 9/11 because it is, by far, the biggest of the false flag psy ops. I’m loath to go on that much about it because there is so much material by now. Here we are 14 years after the event, and, like the JFK assassination, it has spawned a vast literature. Of course, like any body of work, it’s a mixed bag, but certainly, just as in the case of the JFK research community, there are some extremely capable people who have worked on this. I myself have not done any independent research. The only novelty I can bring to the table is presentational in nature. It’s the same basic ingredients but maybe I can present them in a somewhat fresh way.

Here is a basic point to consider: the official 9/11 story is a WOP narrative. No, I don’t mean like the Godfather or Goodfellas. The WOP acronym stands for “Wings on Pigs”. Let me explain. There is a standard idiom in the English language:

If pigs had wings, they could fly.

Like any idiom or cliché, we rarely think about it, I suppose. But, one day (I guess because I’m a weirdo) I was actually thinking about this. It struck me that the idiom was obviously false. I mean, think about it. If you could somehow transplant the wings of an eagle, say, onto a pig, you think the pig could fly? Not that I have any background in any of the relevant scientific fields, but it really seems that a pig’s body is too heavy and dense and not the least bit aerodynamic. Surely the eagle’s wings will only work for the eagle, as the eagle’s body has the appropriate characteristics. So, on consideration, it occurred to me that the correct idiom really should be:

Even if a pig had wings, it still couldn’t fly.

So, hopefully you understand what I mean by a WOP, Wings on Pigs narrative. If you tell me a flying pig story, I can take two basic approaches. I can just say: sorry, pigs don’t have wings. Or if I want to be more clever about it, I could pretend to believe that, okay, maybe a pig could have wings, and then argue that, even so, given the properties of a pig’s body, it still can’t fly! In other words, a WOP narrative is when the story is so many degrees away from being possible that you could concede (just for the sake of argument, really, like pretending that pigs have wings) any specific point and it doesn’t matter: the story is still crazy!

Much of the 9/11 truth debate centres around whether the fires that were burning in the buildings could have melted or weakened the supporting steel frame of the buildings sufficiently to cause a structural failure. Well, the answer, on investigation, is pretty clearly no. The fires weren’t anywhere near big enough or hot enough. Much more intense fires have raged far longer in steel-framed high-rises and not once has such a building ever collapsed as a result. Never. It really is that simple. (Propagandists try to complicate the matter by deliberately confusing the temperatures that can be reached in a blast furnace, but in the conditions of these fires burning this way in the open, they’re nowhere near hot enough.) This seems clear enough, but to make matters worse, even if we assumed that the temperatures of the fires were hot enough to significantly weaken steel columns (i.e. if we assume that pigs have wings) the result would never be this kind of straight-down symmetrical collapse. (i.e. the pig would still not fly!)

The clearest case to consider is building 7, which was not even hit by a plane, and its collapse is on film from several different angles:

What is fascinating about this is that the implosion of WTC building 7 is more impressively clean and vertical and symmetrical than even most controlled demolitions you can look at on youtube! There is an interview one can still watch on youtube where the late Danny Jowenko, a Dutch demolition specialist, when shown the building 7 footage for the first time (without initially being told that it happened on 9/11) expresses obvious admiration at how well executed a demolition job it is.

He says: “Those guys really know what they’re doing.” At this point, anybody with a reasonably high BDQ would realize that the official story — that this building collapsed as a result of unplanned, uncontrolled fires — cannot possibly be true. If all of this is not enough, a further point to ponder is that demolition specialists sometimes mess up, on occasion spectacularly, and the demolition fails. Sometimes, the building just partially collapses, or tips over, or something like that. It is utterly preposterous that a perfect symmetrical collapse as we see in the video could occur just by fires spreading in an undirected, uncontrolled manner. It took me a decade to realise this, but a person with a higher BDQ could realise instantly that something this perfectly symmetrical has to be engineered.

The above is how I came to realize that the official 9/11 story could not be true — that, in fact, it is preposterous. What is funny about this is that, once the spell was broken, I started realizing all the other absurd aspects of the story. Consider the hijacking part. Here is a basic BDQ test question:

Would a terrorist mastermind ever send his agents to the target country for a suicide operation over a year before the operation?

It really seems like the answer must be no. Just think about the following considerations:

  1. The willingness to kill oneself is not a normal state of mind for a person to be in. If somebody is willing to die for the cause now, in February of 2016, is it feasible to plan an operation that depends on that person still being willing to kill himself in August of 2017, say? This seems especially problematic if the person is dropped into a completely novel environment, which the U.S. would be for them. Could anybody really count on people going off to live in another country and then, a year and a half later, being in the exact same state of mind where they are willing to kill themselves? Is there any suicide operation in history that has ever worked like this?
  2. Moreover, why would you ever send the operatives to the target country over a year before the operation anyway? They were there in Venice, Florida to learn how to fly the plane, eh? You think the U.S. is the only country in the world where you can learn to fly an airplane? Wouldn’t the presence of your operatives in the target country for over a year prior to the operation drastically increase the chance of them being identified and having the plot foiled by organs of the State in that country?
  3. It’s a lesser issue, but getting a visa to live in a country for over a year is far more difficult than getting a short-term tourist visa. Of course, one could visit a country on the short-term tourist visa and overstay the time limit, but that also introduces an extra risk factor, getting detained or deported for violating the terms of the visa.

If you think about these questions, it becomes obvious fairly quickly that no real operation would ever work the way the 9/11 operation was alleged to work. Any real terrorist organization would have its agents go to the target country at the last possible moment before the operation. They would fly in on a tourist visa, saying they were middle class Arabs there to see Niagara Falls or Disneyworld, and then carry out the operation shortly after arrival.

Again, as in the previous example of the ISIS beheading videos, it seems like a person of average BDQ ought to realize that the whole hijacking story is preposterous. However, that is obviously not the case, not in western countries anyway. If the average BDQ in the West is assumed to be a baseline 100, then it seems just offhand that, to realize the above requires a BDQ of at least 130. Or possibly higher. It should be immediately obvious, yet I have to pinch myself to realize that it took me well over a decade to get there myself.

Fool Me Once, Shame on You…. Fool me twice…

While the BDQ of the general population in the western countries is horrendously low, I have little doubt that the worst of the lot is the United States. Perhaps the most important factor in this is the general ignorance of history. It is not for nothing that the late, great Gore Vidal referred to the U.S.A. as “the United States of Amnesia”. One aspect of Vidal’s insight is that the American people, as a group, have next to no real collective memory, so they can just keep falling for the same propaganda over and over again.

Doubtless, low BDQ and ignorance of history tend to go hand in hand. After all, much of what we call “intelligence” amounts to pattern recognition and the form of intelligence that we call here BDQ, the ability to detect bullshit, is definitely no exception. This is because the bullshit is surprisingly repetitive in nature. For example, in early August of 1914, the German army invaded Belgium. The British government had already decided to get into the war but needed a pretisxt, so they were shocked, outraged, that the Germans had violated Belgian neutrality. They further claimed that the Germans were committing horrid atrocities in Belgium, “bayoneting Belgian babies” among other things.

A full 76 years later, in 1990, to get the American public behind a war against Iraq, they invented the story of the Iraqis taking babies out of the incubators in Kuwait. Now, you would think that anybody who knew history, when they see basically the same war propaganda recycled, they might think, like Roger Daltrey: “won’t get fooled again”.

So, let’s say that, tomorrow, it is claimed that ISIS (or whatever Bogeyman du jour) has massacred a bunch of babies, this is intolerable, and we must go off to war. It stands to reason that people who know the historical precedents are far less likely to buy the story. Once you know that they have used these stories about babies to sell more than one war, you will be very loath to accept any similar warmongering story without strong proof. You can also be sure that when you do ask for proof of the story, none will be provided; you will be denounced as a “conspiracy theorist”.

Just as the warmongering propaganda gets recycled over and over, the modus operandi of Deep State operations does not change that much either. If you look at the Kennedy assassination of over fifty years ago, you have a patsy, a designated fall guy who is to be framed for the crime, Lee Harvey Oswald. In the assassination of the black civil rights leader, Martin Luther King, four and a half years later, the patsy was a man named James Earl Ray — like Oswald, another white American. Today, the same pattern is repeated over and over: specialists carry out the operation and one or more patsies are framed for it. Typically, the patsies are killed, giving the authorities quite a bit of liberty to say anything they want afterwards. Nowadays, the patsies are almost invariably Muslims, because that is the Roger Rabbit narrative being pushed.

When a HIQI professes amazement that you could even consider the possibility that deep State agents would commit a crime and then attempt to frame somebody else for it, what he is doing of course, is exposing his own ignorance of history — in a rather cringeworthy fashion.

High IQ Idiots and the Conspiracy Theory Shibboleth

All of this brings us to one key thing about High IQ idiots. Granted, it is subjective in nature, I think it will ring true to most readers:

A HIQI is far far more annoying and obnoxious than a garden variety low IQ idiot.

You see, the conventional idiot, the low IQ idiot, does not typically use his own low IQ as proof of how clever he is. Okay, he may well say something like: “Sure, I was never very good at school but I’m nobody’s fool.” And, fair enough. In my view, that’s actually a reasonable thing to say. But he will just about never say something like: “I don’t understand calculus (or whatever) and that shows how clever I am.”

The high IQ idiot will take his own idiocy, specifically his own inability to see through these Roger Rabbit narratives, as well as his own woeful ignorance of history, as proof that he is more clever than you are! I can only speak for myself, but I find that pretty damned annoying! In fact, it’s so annoying that one can lose one’s cool, when, really, what is needed is to think very coldly and analytically about how to approach this problem.

One of the first issues to discuss in this regard is this whole “conspiracy theory” construct and the associated insult, where they call you a “conspiracy theorist”. Quite typically, this is the only rhetorical weapon they have, and as such, they always pull it out and keep trying to bang away at you with it. In fact, if you can wrest this single weapon from them, they are essentially disarmed. They don’t have anything else!

The most important thing to understand about the CT concept is that it is utterly meaningless. This becomes quite obvious when you ask people for proof of whatever official, Roger Rabbit narrative they are espousing. For example, if you simply ask people to provide proof of the government story of 9/11, without suggesting any alternative theory yourself, you will pretty much invariably be called a “conspiracy theorist” even though you have yourself offered no theory! On reflection, the whole thing is really very odd, because the government story would seem to be a “conspiracy theory”, as it is a theory and it does involve conspirators conspiring. So they propose a conspiracy theory, you request proof of that theory, and they respond to your request by saying that you are a conspiracy theorist!

It is as if, when you say that you don’t believe the stories in the Bible, people were to respond by accusing you of being a religious fanatic!

Eventually, one comes to the understanding that a CT is just any avenue of investigation that the authorities want to discourage you from exploring! And this is the case even if no conspiracy was posited. Or even any theory at all! At various times, I have heard people refer to the proposal that the Federal Reserve should be independently audited as a “conspiracy theory”. I recall Donald Rumsfeld saying that the belief that the Iraq war had something to do with oil (as opposed to the U.S. government’s official explanation, the non-existent WMD’s) was a “conspiracy theory”!

Calling something a CT is simply an illegitimate way of trying to shut down a conversation and it may well be that the most important cultural/intellectual divide in our current day world is between those who realize that and those who don’t. Finally, the only way to deal with this “you’re a conspiracy theorist nya nya” sort of thing must be something analogous to Godwin’s law. I guess I could immodestly propose that this be called “Revusky’s law”:

Anybody who starts with this vacuous nonsense about “conspiracy theories” and/or calls you a “conspiracy theorist” has thereby conceded the debate.

When the HIQI professes his belief in whatever Roger Rabbit narrative, it is up to him to tell you what the proof is for the story. Simply calling you a name, in particular a name that is meaningless anyway, does not cut it.

Overall Tactics: Retaining the Initiative

The above brings us to something that is, properly understood, a more general point that goes beyond the issue directly at hand here. This may seem like a tangent but bear with me.

Across a wide variety of different competitive activities — sports, games and so forth — any proper analysis of strategy and tactics will refer to a very basic concept: the initiative. At any given moment, the person who holds the initiative is the one who is forcing his opponent to react to him, rather than the other way round. Consider, for example, two games that seem, on the face of it, to have absolutely nothing in common: chess and tennis. Nonetheless, there is actually a thread of commonality. In both games, holding the initiative is a huge advantage, at least at a professional level of play. In chess, the white pieces move first, and, in high level play between comparable players, the vast majority of games with a decisive result are won by the player playing white. For broadly similar reasons, in tennis, in a match between players of comparable level, the player who serves in a given game is vastly favored to win that game, because he begins each point holding the initiative.

Looking at this in a very general way, we could say that it is somehow in the nature of things that passivity is rarely a winning strategy in this life. Thus, across a wide variety of games or competitive activities, the expert practitioner will not readily cede the initiative. No, it is the weak, inexperienced player who readily adopts a passive, reactive stance.

This all has a direct application to the topic at hand, which is how to deal with the HIQI’s and their Roger Rabbit narratives. Much to my amazement and exasperation, what I continually observe in debates is that people who really ought to know better make the basic tactical mistake of ceding the initiative to their opponent. Time and again, they allow themselves to be maneuvered into a passive, reactive stance.

This is really quite a striking phenomenon when you examine it. Earlier I introduced the concept of the WOP (Wings On Pigs) narrative. A WOP narrative is so many degrees away from being possible that a full refutation tends to be complete overkill. The flying pig story is impossible because the pig does not have wings and, moreover, even if the pig did have wings, it still would not fly.

So, if you are facing a WOP narrative, how can you fail to win the debate? Well, the first thing to understand is that, if somebody has to use legitimate arguments, based on facts and logic, to defend an absurd story, his position is completely untenable. Or, to use the more lively vernacular, he is up (bull)shit creek without a paddle. And this has a simple logical implication. A position which is indefensible (by definition, really) will not be defended. Your opponent understands (consciously or not) that he cannot defend his stated belief. The only thing he can do is go on the attack. What they will typically do is demand that you tell some alternative story to their flying pigs narrative and then, if you are silly enough to do so, they try to pick holes in your story. So it becomes: “If it wasn’t the official story (flying pigs) then you tell me what happened!”

The answer must be something like: “Sorry, dude, you have to defend the flying pigs story before I tell you any story myself, i.e. I’m not ceding the initiative. So, flying pigs you say… now, could you explain this aspect that I never had clear…. how do these flying pigs, given their body mass, ever get airborne? Have you ever personally seen a pig with wings?” And so on…

A related tactic is when, in response to the most obvious common-sense observation, they will attack your qualifications to say whatever it is. You point out that pigs don’t have wings and they start asking you where you did your ph.D. in zoology. Or if you say that, even if a pig did have wings, it still couldn’t fly, they say: “Well, you obviously have never studied aerodynamics.” Essentially, the idea becomes that, in order to make the most obvious common sense observation about the world — pigs do not fly, bears do shit in the woods…. — you must possess multiple doctorates from M.I.T. or someplace.

Regardless, the underlying point is that, by necessity, they will go on the attack and grasp for some way to make you respond to them. Once you understand the concept of the initiative and apply it to this case, it becomes obvious that you have to make them answer your questions. So, if they’re defending their WOP narrative, you keep the pressure on: “So, pigs may possess wings, you say…. can you point me to any evidence for this?” Or: “You say pigs can fly, eh? Well, that’s fascinating. I can’t find any evidence for this. Can you help me?” Obviously, the defender of a WOP narrative is in a completely untenable position when facing such straightforward questioning and must try to turn the tables and make you respond to him.

So it is with a key event like 9/11. You ask them: “Can you point to any example of a steel-framed high-rise building collapsing in a perfectly symmetrical manner from randomly spreading office fires?” They’re obviously not going to give you the only straight, honest answer which is: “No, steel framed high rise buildings never integrally collapse from randomly spreading fires, and certainly not in a perfectly symmetrical manner.” They have to confuse the issue by trying to make you answer their questions or by attacking your qualifications or something like this.

What tends to happen is that, once you understand the basic game theory here, that you cannot voluntarily cede the initiative, the debate is over very quickly. For example, if you ask any of the defenders of the official 9/11 story a simple question: “Could you please outline the best evidence available that the government story is true — specifically that the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated by a man named Osama Bin Laden from faroff Afghanistan?” The question is obviously legitimate and a defender of the official story has no excuse for not answering you, yet you will never receive a straightforward answer. If you don’t believe me, go ahead and try it.

At the time of this writing, the recent (November 2015) events in Paris are still quite topical. The French authorities claim now that the terrorist mastermind was a young man, an ethnic Arab named Abdelhamid Abaaoud. Here are the photos of this “mastermind” that appear from a google image search.

https://www.google.es/search?q=abdelhamid+abaaoud&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix89uJ34nKAhVFaxQKHaLLApkQ_AUIBygB&biw=1366&bih=602

We should strive not to speak ill of the dead, but look at the photos: does this fearsome terrorist mastermind look capable of masterminding the tying of his own shoelaces? I think not. Now, people can jump on me and say that one should not judge a book by its cover. After all these Ay-rabs are devious, and Abdelhamid, in all these photos, may have just been pretending to be a dork.

Well, in all honesty, one must concede that this is possible. Still, my response to this is that if you say that the above pictured kid was the mastermind of these terrorist attacks, I’m going to demand the proof from you. And said “proof” really should not be one or more of:

  1. They told me on the TV that he was the mastermind, so he was.
  2. It’s true unless you can demonstrate that it’s false, i.e. you ask me to prove the negative.
  3. You’re a conspiracy theorist nya nya.

The basic concept here is this: if somebody is peddling whatever Roger Rabbit narrative, that Jihadi John and Jihadi Joseph are real individuals, this kid Abdelhamid Ibn Oswald was a great terrorist mastermind, or some other folks bayoneted some babies just for the pure fun of it — then they have to tell you what specifically the proof of this is. You cannot let them turn the tables on you and put you in a defensive position.

Closing Comments

This essay has been an attempt to address a very broad topic of discussion. To do so, I have introduced some novel terminology and concepts. One such is the RRN, which is the Roger Rabbit Narrative, in which cartoon elements are superimposed on reality. There is BDQ, the Bullshit Detection Quotient, the ability to see through the bullshit, which is a form of intelligence that does not seem very correlated with IQ. And then there is HIQI, the acronym for “High IQ Idiot”, which refers to people with a combination of high IQ and low BDQ.

When I showed earlier drafts of this article to some people, one comment I got back was that I should think twice about some of this terminology — well, in particular, HIQI.

You see, apparently, the conventional wisdom is that, if you want to win friends and influence people, you shouldn’t call them idiots. Yeah, that is probably a pretty well founded rule of thumb. So if I consciously break that rule and use the dreaded “I-word”, there ought to be a good reason. Or reasons. So let me explain.

First of all, I have not wanted for this article to be a pure exercise in venting my own frustrations. Since all of this is so utterly exasperating, that is an easy trap to fall into. I wanted to avoid that and actually write something useful. So, no, the novel terminology and concepts I have introduced, such as HIQI or BDQ, are not meant as throwaway insults. No, I really am trying to provide some useful framework of analysis. Really. But one problem is that if you are going to inform people that, unfortunately, they believe that cartoons are real, it is actually rather hard to sugar-coat this. I could not think of a euphemism that avoided the I-word, at least without using another term that is at least as derogatory. In fact, nobody who objected to my HIQI terminology ever proposed an alternative term.

But the thing is that I really am not trying to be derisive or scornful towards the people I refer to as HIQIs. No, because I make no bones about the fact that I myself was, by my own definition, a HIQI for most of my life. I believed all the bullshit too. So I understand. And I sympathize.

At the beginning of this essay, I linked the outrageous fight scene in the movie “They Live” and I said that I understood the scene much better now than when I first saw the movie when it came out so many years ago. Of course I understand why the character does not want to put on those sunglasses and see the world as it really is! Of course I do! It’s really depressing to put on those sunglasses or take that red pill and see the world as it actually is!

Now, the other side of this is that, when, for whatever reason, something snaps and you join the reality community, it is a real intellectual adventure. It’s exciting to learn, to start connecting the dots and understand things that you didn’t have the conceptual tools to understand before. But then the problem still is that what you do learn tends to be profoundly depressing. To realize what a rotten, corrupt society you live in is a real bummer. It’s not just realizing the truth about all the false flag terrorism. Sites like this one introduced me to economic analysis of people like Michael Hudson or Paul Craig Roberts and I started to understand how much of our economic order is utterly fraudulent. Sophisticated looting operations, Ponzi schemes basically, blowing bubbles and popping the bubbles and bailing out the fraudsters with public money. What are basically loan sharking schemes as you see there with Greece and other countries. Throughout it all there is a common theme, what Ron Unz calls “American Pravda”, the realization that the professional class that, in principle, is supposed to be informing you about the world, is devoted to lying and covering it all up. And heck, it’s not even normal lies in many cases. It’s the Roger Rabbit narratives, where people are pretending that cartoons are real! How utterly exasperating and infuriating is that?

So, yes. Hell yes. I now understand why the character in “They Live” fights like a possessed maniac to avoid putting on those sunglasses! And I understand why the people I refer to as HIQI’s are so resistant to being told the truth about a host of matters.

So, the point of this is not simply to heap scorn on the people I’m calling HIQI’s. I understand them. I was one myself.

The other thing this essay is not meant to be is some sort of call to the barricades. I myself am getting a bit too old to man any barricade. But to tell the truth, even at a younger age, physical courage and martial prowess were never my calling card. Anyway, if I was going to call on people to man the barricades, I’d have to know where said barricades are and also be able to make the case that manning them would do some good.

Still, I have used martial imagery right in the title, “battling” the Matrix — i.e. confronting the pervasive bullshit. So I am saying that this is a war. Of a sort. And a war has battles and skirmishes. Of a sort. To the extent that the analogy is valid, you do have to think about strategy and tactics.

I’m certain that if you study the great military leaders of history, Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte and the like, you see that they don’t engage in battle for its own sake. The goal is not to to engage in battle, or even to win battles per se. The goal is to win the war. In short, you only engage in battle when it makes sense to do so.

In our personal lives, we will interact socially or professionally with people who believe in all the Roger Rabbit narratives, and when you say you don’t believe it, the people will disdainfully call you a “conspiracy theorist”. Uh-huh, yeah, been there, done that… Certainly, there are cases where the situation can get sufficiently nasty and the people are so obviously a lost cause anyway, that there is little to do but to let the matter slide.

So, on the one hand, yes, I feel strongly that there is a real moral imperative in this life to stand up for the truth. That, after all, is why I wrote this essay. However, one cannot really advocate what amounts to pointless, self-destructive behavior.

I guess what it finally comes down to is that, in this infowar, like in a conventional war, you don’t engage in battle for its own sake, if nothing can be achieved. But if you judge that this is the right spot and you do opt to go into battle, you need a good understanding of the nature of the enemy, the basic strategy and tactics, and also the overall lay of the land. So, in this essay, I’ve tried to present some ideas in this regard. It’s not the last word on the topic, really more like an attempt to start a conversation.

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

 
The American Pravda Series
Of Related Interest
shutterstock_193613897
shutterstock_310745324
Where Do We Stand?
shutterstock_182601212
Fred Reveals His Martian Loyalties

421 Comments to "Battling the Matrix and Freeing Oneself from the Roger Rabbit Mental World"

Commenters to Ignore
...to Follow
Endorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. Leftist conservative [AKA "Trump Kills Last Mosquito, Places Tiny Make America Great Hat On ZikaHead Baby"]
    says:
    • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    well, you are on the right site if you want to write about IQ. Most of the people here just want to read about IQ and history.

    Anyway, I think the phrase Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) is more relevant to what you are getting at here. So, if you have a high SDO you align your personal perspective along with those at the top of society. Low SDO, you align yourself against those at the top.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    As I was reading this essay, I kept thinking the HIQI were people that had “cognitive dissonance”. Anyway, I think this Orwell quote sums up the general problem quite well, “Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.” Thanks for the insightful essay.

  3. Excellent JR!

    It seems you’re trying to force us to put those sunglasses on- even if we don’t want to. But as you note, we have to take the red pill of our own free will.

    There surly are HIQI a plenty, but then I think you left out another significant group who might just show up here, and they are ‘the shills’. Some quite intelligent and others remarkably not so. But they’re legion, and they’re not lacking in bullshit detection, they are the bullshit. They’re the liars and smear merchants and apologists for the fiends of that day.

    Kudos to you sir for your obviously sincere efforts. If the people who actually planned and carried out 911 are able to get away with it, and all their wars and perfidious subversions of our freedoms- for which 911 was the pretext- then the rest of us are in for a future Orwell was only too prescient to warn us about. It would be prudent for us to try to avoid that. And I believe that exposing the criminals who perpetrated 911 is the most important, if noble thing we can do until the day comes when we won’t be able to.

    This is the crux of an existential war between Goldman Sachs and Halliburton and Monsanto and Raytheon and Lockheed Martin and Big Pharma and the Fed and Zionists in control of the West and her media and institutions and all the other Oligarchs of Satan and their minions and stooges vs human dignity and freedom in the 21st century and beyond. The stakes are too high to sweep aside this particular debate.

  4. Oh god thank you, incredible synchronicity, I just today was having lunch with two family members who are stuck in the Matrix- two HIQIs to be sure- and it was incredibly, incredibly frustrating trying to explain myself and how differently I view the world, media, and politics. I did literally bang my head in the table at one point. Needless to say, instead of trying to dig up a series of articles for reading, I have everything I need right here. Great piece. Thank you, just saved me many hours. Literally. Feel just like the author. For me, the LPM came right after the Boston Bombing, watching Sibel Edmonds and James Corbett do the Gladio B series of interviews and the ensuing rabbit hole I went down and from which I apparently will never emerge.

    • Replies:
  5. I don’t know what happened on 9/11, but I don’t believe the official narrative, and haven’t for some time now.

    There’s too much there. Too many things that don’t make sense. Too many suspicious connections. Too many “coincidences.” Too many experts from different fields that explain how this or that doesn’t add up. Too much evidence destroyed. And too much of a lack of curiosity on the part of the media – especially regarding those Israeli “art students.”

    Only three buildings in history have leveled themselves “without” explosive demolitions, perfectly straight down, at the same speed as it would take for a rock to fall freely if dropped from that same height. And all three of those incidents happened on 9/11. The fail points had to have been symmetrical and synchronous.

    And that is only the beginning of the things that make you scratch your head.

    The TWA 800 incident is another one that doesn’t add up. There’s a very good documentary about it that came out a couple years ago, though I don’t recall the name. Check it out. The official narrative is a lie. Beyond that, I don’t know what happened or why.

    And what are the chances that a communist (plausible motive) who was taught to shoot in the Marines (plausible expertise) happened to have been given a job at a building and on the floor of that building that would later turn out to be a perfect shooting position for an assassin (plausible opportunity), should a Presidential parade route just happen to later be scheduled to come down the street below?

    And then there is Scalia? All alone. No security. No witnesses. The pillow over the head story is later “clarified” to avoid “misunderstanding.” No investigation. No autopsy. The most hated member of the SCOTUS bench dies under these circumstances when Barack Obama has less than a year to go, and when it looks like a maverick that cant be controlled is about to be elected POTUS in about 9 months.

  6. Wow, this essay was awesome and rang true on many levels. I especially appreciated what you termed the LPM, and I can say mine was the Ukraine crisis, and my eyes were opened by a podcaster no less. Ever since I started following politics in my sophomore year in 2011, it was completely obvious that the media was heavily biased in a partisan way, but I took for granted that some of the basic elements on foreign affairs and some issues were generally true. While looking for non-partisan analysis, I started listening to some political podcasts, including and especially Common Sense with Dan Carlin. Although he doesn’t completely throw out the traditional narratives, he’s generally reliable and is equally dismissive of both parties. So after gaining some trust in him, his analysis of the 2014 coup in Ukraine, and how it was so radically different from the NYT, WSJ mainstream consensus, really opened my eyes to a whole world of alternative media and was definitely my personal LPM moment.

    What’s also fascinating is the HIQI phenomenon. I grew up in an NYC suburb with both parents working in Manhattan, and one of my neighbors who also worked there had a “9/11 was an inside job” bumper sticker on his car. Even though he was by far the wealthiest of the already affluent neighborhood, my friends and I, as well as my law school educated, corporate parents all thought he was nuts. They still are all in, and I guess at this point they’ve decided on the blue pill and that’s not going to change, but I’m just shocked at how many people from the presumably high IQ professional class so easily manipulated by the media.

    And the one question I’d ask is how do you think the mainstream media so uniform in its control over narratives. Is it out and out corruption where corporate interests tell basically all the journalists what to write? Or do you think it’s more just group-think where maybe there’s a little collusion with the government and the NYT and then everyone just follows their lead. Or is it perhaps just that the incentives so strongly punish outside the box ideas they’re not even suggested. I guess my point is do you think that most journalists at the Washington Post or NYT for instance, are aware of how they are manipulating the public, or are they themselves being manipulated as well. (I feel like there have to be a few people at the top that are aware, but I’m curious if you think most are just typical HIQI professionals)?

    • Replies: ,
  7. Congratulations, Grasshopper, you have now achieved the lank of black belt. This signifies that you are leady to BEGIN learning.

  8. Revusky,

    What you have called the BDQ is really just a newly acquired proclivity for latching onto contrarian narratives based on a shift in your global intuitions about “who the real bad guys are.” It is still essentially the same old post hoc reasoning and narrative building, only now proceeding on the basis of a different credo.

    You may have taken the red pill but it did not lead you to reality, only to another matrix, a counter-matrix. The denizens of the two respective matrices don’t think too highly of each other’s beliefs and may variously argue, call each other names, or try to convert one another as the case may be; but in reality they are composed of the same substance underneath. The all-too-human tendency for Grand Narrative-style thinking runs in the veins of each of them.

    Simply converting to a new tribe doesn’t get you any closer to reality. It takes an enormous amount of self-denial, mortification, and philosophical expertise to transcend our basic human bent for tribal thinking, and there are no shortcuts.

    • Replies:
  9. A brilliant article! (Although, in terms of length, it’s almost a short book). The idea of the HIQI is fascinating, as it turns up repeatedly throughout history. Some related perceptions:

    “This is one of those views which are so absurd that only very learned men could possibly adopt them”. – Betrand Russell, “My Philosophical Development” (1959)

    “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool”. – George Orwell, “Notes on Nationalism (1945)”

    “A nerd is someone who, when told that a fair coin has come up heads 99 times in a row, believes that the chances of it coming up heads on the 100th toss is exactly 0.50. A non-nerd (the kind of person who tends to succeed in life), on the other hand, immediately assumes the coin is loaded – despite having been told IN THE RUBRIC that it is fair. And there you have it: a nerd is someone who wants to know the rules, and then sticks within them. Do you believe in finding out the rules and obeying them – or in making up the rules and having everyone obey you?” – My paraphrase of Nassim Nicholas Taleb ((“The Black Swan” pp 122-5)

    The common factor seems to be that a “nerd” (in Taleb’s parlance) is someone who likes to know the rules and stick to them. As if life were some kind of game, that is. (Such people also tend to like playing games, for that very reason). It’s quite likely that intelligent people are more prone to this weakness, because their education has conditioned them to accept “the rubric”.

  10. I don’t like to use the Matrix analogy because people might mistake me for talking about the trilogy of movies, two thirds of which was crap, instead of merely the first movie, which was ingenious. Better to stick with the original–or at least the earliest example I’m aware of–which is Plato’s cave.

    Oh also couldn’t help but notice The Matrix is redolent of Ira Levin’s novel This Perfect Day, which has the pills. It also brings to mind Alice in Wonderland, which The Matrix openly references and which lacks pills but has the Drink Me and Eat Me substances down the rabbit hole.

  11. It depends on what you determine as ” bullshit ”. Rightists love accuse the leftist idiocy, but they already have centuries of experiences in this department, with Christian nonsense for example, determining what should or should not do. Taming is needed, and not need be based on lies, but in mutual agreements vitally necessary cooperation to support human societies.

    The population ” ” high IQ is like any other psychometric layer, 110-120, 130-140, 90-100, or 90-110, 110-140, etc …. and most of them are neuro-typicals . One of the big bad interpretations of hbd-logy is to confuse the alpha + (or beta +) with omega outsider observer (not all omegas are observers, it should be noted) to conceptualize the genius.

    Brave new world has shown that even anecdotally, that genius tends to be the result of an ‘anomaly’. ”A few drops of alcohol in the blood” can make you unusual, less strong, more melancholic, and therefore more able to experience the phenomenon of existence in a completely unique way, and potentially rich in ‘new’ perceptions (creativity).

    Cognitive tests are related to ” HAVE ” a great cognitive potential, but human beings (on average, relatively and with great variation) evolved to the point of being able to look at reality, and not be engulfed by its dynamics, as happen with other animals. The enlarged self-consciousness can make him simulate reality by putting yourself in a position ” out-of-body perspective ”, as a neutral judge, something that science has done considerably. So this kind of fundamental intelligence, which I prefer to call as wisdom, tends to relate to BE exponentially intelligent, and human intelligence, even because of their superlative dimensions of potential impacts, must evolve together with morality.

    Iq tests may can perfectly reflect their cognitive potential, but which is fantastic and amazing about human being is that s(he) is able to produce new realities with their ideas and modify the environment and also their perception of the world. Tuesday, internalize and engage in smart ideas, morally correct and lucidly wise is BE intelligent. If you call yourself as a genius because of their scores on cognitive tests and NOT translate this preconceived assumption in right actions, from his private life, to their shared personal achievements, it is in fact what I have called the iqtard manifestation.

    • Replies:
  12. At the risk of sounding presumptuous, I seem to have a very high BDQ. Th first (and only) time I watched one of those beheading videos, I laughed because the fakery was so obvious. And ven before learning about the structural impossibility of the manner of the collapse of the towers in New York, there were other parts of the story we were being fed which seemed highly implausible.

    I would agree with your premise that Americans, more than other people, are likely to have a lower BDQ as you call it, then other people and I believe it is because Americans are in some ways the most indoctrinated people on the planet. If you ask most Americans to name one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, I greatly suspect ‘freedom’ of the press would be given by many of them. Of all the amendments, it is the one we hear most often about, the other I would argue is the right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, this ‘freedom of the press’ when taken to its logical conclusion, implies the freedom for bias and misinformation. But, most Americans have never even considered that, they have been conditioned to accept the nobility of this ‘right’ and believe in the goodness and integrity of their news outlets. At least, those to which they choose to read, listen, or hear. The result of this is a populace whose opinions and beliefs can be easily molded.

    I wonder if you have considered the possibility that people with high BDQ are in fact people with high ‘raw’ intelligence. I’ve met an awful lot of people with masters and doctorates who do not strike me as particularly ‘intelligent’ or ‘sharp’ and seem to have a low level of ‘raw’ (my word) intelligence. They are are as well some of the most naive people I’ve met, as naive as their less educated compatriots. They would be loathe to believe that about themselves though, which makes them even easier to control. They may be good at what they know or do, but outside that they often flounder about like a fish out of water. An example is Ben Carson. No doubt he is a highly skilled surgeon and very educated in his way, but how much ‘raw’ intelligence has he? Very little from what I’ve heard and seen.

    All of this leads me to the conclusion that we need to find a better way to define intelligence.

  13. This is an important topic and so this article is much appreciated. The HIQI coincidence theorists contribute as much to the downfall of America as do the actual perpetrators of these monstrous false flag crimes. It is they that function to arrest logic within the general populace and prevent it from reaching a vital tipping point. Is it the confirmation bias that causes otherwise intelligent people to cling to an imagined false ideal of the world rather than deal with reality? Simple immaturity?

  14. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    We see this with climate change. Sounding clever takes second place to being right; where’s the benefit in being right along with all of the uneducated masses? The ability to impose unpopular narratives is a mechanism of power, power grants privilege.

  15. I don’t know whether the ISIS beheadings of a couple of Western journalists in Syria were real or staged (Revusky may be right about it being the latter); but it’s a definite fact that both ISIS and the other jihadi terrorist groups HAVE been doing a lot of beheading, as well as all kinds of other horrible atrocities, in Syria and Iraq. This is unequivocally corroborated by a wide variety of local and international sources, both Western AND non-Western (pro-Syrian government, Iraqi, Russian, Iranian, Kurdish, Turkish, etc., etc., in addition to pro-jihadi sources themselves, who proudly trumpet it). This is NOT a conspiratorial fabrication; it is a FACT.

    • Agree: Pseudonymic Handle
    • Replies:
  16. LOL …. Jonathan Revusky you seems to be one the millions of brainwashed dudes who take CNN, FoxNews, NYT, BBC, WP, etc. as world from G-d.

    President JFK was assassinated by Israeli Mossad (former Rep. Findley) and Rev. Luther King was victim of FBI-CIA goons.

    As far 9/11 is concerned – one wonders why the Jewish Lobby is now chasing Donald Trump for mentioning that if elected president, he would re-investigate 9/11.

    Trump has accused Bush for lying about Iraqi WMDs and invading Iraq based on 9/11 attacks.

    “We went after Iraq, they did not knock down the World Trade Center. It wasn’t Iraqis that knocked down the World Trade Center. We went after Iraq, we decimated the country, Iran’s taking over, okay. But it wasn’t Iraqis, you will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center. Because they have papers in there that are very secret – you may find it’s the Saudis,” Trump told his sheep.

    In other words, Trump pledged to form another ‘9/11 Commission’ if elected next US president, that would blame Saudi ‘royals’ in order to whitewash Israeli hands behind 9/11.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/02/22/donald-trump-im-911-truther/

  17. You imply leftism isn’t also weighed down by centuries of Christian nonsense, which I find exceedingly odd. For even if they’ve shrugged off Christianity in favor of secularism and science and reason, or whatever they call it, their ideas–egalitarianism, communalism, have a history. And that history is Christian as much as is the right’s.

    • Replies:
  18. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Ask not what Merca can do for you my fellow sheeple but indeed what you can do for the 001%. That is the meaning of a true patriot and the e$$ence of love that binds US and keeps US a great nation. Do not be led from the flock by those that cast doubt on our Sacred Trinity of the Holy Hubris and the tenets upon which our exceptionalism is erected.

    ONE: Know ye that the evil Lee Harvey with magic bullets did alone smite the Knight of Camelot coz said Knight wanted to give away our stuff to the le$$er tribes.

    TWO: Our War Machine with NaSA did “land” a tin can on the moon “and do the other things” that Camelot Guy had promised before they blew his brains out live on TV. This mooning was pulled off with fred flintstone technology after microwaving our moononauts in the Van Allen Belt, then cruising a further 300,000 klicks out to finally “land” (pun intended) on the cheese ball. Then our guys scouted about in their “moon” buggy a tad, shot a round of golf and after delicious nutritious snacks and some more “Hassleblad” bad selfies and snapshots blasted 60 miles up into lunar orbit, did dock with mother ship orbiting there at 4000 MPH and then blasted home another 384,400.00 kms and splashed down in time for more snapshots and to catch Archie Bunker on late nite TV. (Be not ye tricked by those that tell you that almost 50 years later we can’t even manage to get to the low orbiting Intl Space Station at 400 kms without that damn Vlad Putin’s rocket ships.) Our stuff IS still up there on the moon….the other side of course and the Chinese are so blind they couldn’t find it!

    THREE: 17 cunning camel herders from the feudal abomination of Saud (our best buddy and keeper of our fiat petroscrip Saudi Mercan toilet paper IOU dollah currency) did blow up Merca on 9 11 coz they hate our freedoms and the selfle$$ spreading of our dung like demokracy among the lesser tribes. This they did with magic carpet expertise and our NSA GESTAPO found Mr Atta’s perfectly preserved passport (Allah Snack Bar) blocks away from the Thermite Towers and for this reason we had to wage war on all and sundry who dared U$e any toilet paper currency other than our own blood spattered and much smeared soft triple-ply U$er toilet paper to preserve the freedom$ of Planet Merca.

    All these and more true lies are the very foundations upon which our exceptionalism is built. Should so much as one of these beliefs be cast into doubt…then my fellow sheeple our entire sheep farm would be in jeopardy and you would very quickly be shorn and become mutton.

  19. My hat is off to you Jonathan Revusky. And my apologies for hitting you over the head on some occasions (but not others.)

    Insofar as the disinformation matrix, I would add beware of those specialists who persevere in attacking false narrative with alternative false narrative, it’s more than just a ‘cottage industry’ in professional information operations (meant to skew any increasing BDQ in people.)

    Sam Shama and I had a brief exchange (I don’t care to go digging for it, you can call me lazy) in a previous thread where I’d pointed to high IQ in case where people seemed incapable of competently chewing gum and tying their shoes in the same moment. Sam pointed out the immense damage such persona are capable of; when in position of responsibility and/or power. Relevant to this, on any number of occasions I’ve tried point out to people here in comments at UNZ high IQ does not confer common sense. Probably one of the worst related phenomena is those high IQ who actually believe in their own BS. Whether academic or whatever, such instance is ripe for manipulation by those professional masters of disinformation set upon our society from whence intelligence agencies and corporate boards are fused (best typified in Alan & John Dulles’ relationship to the board of United Fruit when director of CIA & Secretary of State respectively, how profitable was the related overthrow of the Arbenz government in Guatemala to United Fruit? Such events saved the corporations tidy sums with related union busting and favorable subsequent tax circumstance throughout Latin America with the USA taxpayer picking up the overthrow dime.)

    Insofar as domestic corruption that is clear, pervasive and prone to building BDQ level in people, I recommend this somewhat maverick, conservative libertarian’s blog, dig through his archive and the typical citizen would be likely both nauseated and educated if only because the man thoroughly does his homework:

    http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/

    ^ This guy stands head and shoulders above several of the UNZ authors when it comes to detailing the real, everyday corruption in the USA.

    And maybe because I’m a narcissist or maybe because I happen to know my shit pretty good, here’s tooting my own horn again on revealing the kind nastiness the USA taxpayer picks up the tab for (in ‘oh-so-many-ways’) to benefit scurvy like Exxon-Mobil and joe redneck doesn’t have a clue:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2015/11/29/whereas-the-enemy-of-your-friend-is-your-favorite-fk/

    Or in the case of a recent, exceptional piece in mainstream, the Boston Globe lays it out: American media lies to you:

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/18/the-media-are-misleading-public-syria/8YB75otYirPzUCnlwaVtcK/story.html?event=event25&s_campaign=sm_gp&hl=en-US

    ^

    • Replies:
  20. Not if I let you understand it so it was not my intention, leftism is literalization of Christianity, purification over the famous christian hypocrisy and or contradictions.

    All cultures and religions take part of objective morality, to produce what I call subjective morality, that is, it depends on the context. Morality via convenience, which is incomplete and therefore potentially contradictory.

  21. You can think of propaganda as weaponized information. In 911, what you are seeing is a weapon designed to target your mind. In particular, it targets your critical thinking abilities. It brings your World View in to conflict with your intellect. That is to say, what you most deeply and strongly believe vs. what you know to be true.

    This creates a psychological, emotional schism that is forced deep into your psyche(by your own brain no less). It is a profound psychological attack. This causes the logical reasoning side of your brain to overload as it races to “square the circle. Your brain gores down an endless loop of:

    If X were true it would imply that Y is true. And Y can’t possibly be true, because it would imply that Z is true. And we all know that Z can’t possibly be true. Because, uh, well, I mean because the world just can’t be that way!”

    It will affect most powerfully those whose World View is strongly developed and are clever enough to figure it out, that is, those with strong a World View and strong analytic abilities. You are being Brain Hacked.

    What we see in 911 is singular and exceptional. Other “hoaxes” don’t come close.

    The Perpetrator(s) really were some particularly clever and nasty people. (or person)

    • Replies: ,
  22. It is a very interesting article you have written, Mr Revulsky, with some very perceptive and thoughtful points.

    But I believe you are perhaps too timid in your analysis as to how you define most, if not all, of the Bullsh#t that has been heaped upon the vast majority of Americans.

    It is Fraud, Mr Revulsky, plain and simple.

    Deliberate, pre-planned, and highly effective Fraud.

    We are living in the age of fraud..Mr Revulsky..massive ,systemic, heaving…. Fraud.

    What defines our time, most especially, since 9-11, is……. Fraud.

    Terror Fraud….War Fraud..Spending Fraud….. Banking Fraud….and Genocide Fraud.

    If there exists a “global empire” today, it is truly and most exquisitely an Empire of Fraud.

    What allows it to sustain itself ?

    Several things.

    First, there is the fact that most people, no matter how intelligent(as you say) are simply unable to see beyond the moral parameters their conscience allows….So just as it is inconceivable that any one of us would commit a terrorist act….so too is it equally inconceivable that we would commit a “false flag attack”, or that any, who function in our name, would do so either.

    This field, of the morally unthinkable, is precisely where Terror fraud operates most effectively,because it harnesses our own moral horror (while committing the act) and embraces it as its own.

    I actually did a study on the history of terrorism, and found the first to employ (if not invent) this technique (quite effectively) were The Sicarii,(70 B.C.E) Jewish Zealot Terrorists who used concealed knives to assassinate their victims within large crowds, then become the ones among the crowd, who weep and cry most vehemently at the horror of the attack, disguising themselves, and their culpability, in the process.

    The second thing, Mr Revulsky, is Power.

    Power … Mr Revulsky….sheer, unadulterated, power .

    It is Power….. over those who disseminate information….Power..over those who cloister it….

    Power…. over those among us assigned to investigate…..and Power, over those who shape our perceptions of what we are investigating…or why there should be no investigations…at all.

    Power… over those who attribute and demand accountability…..Power..over those who create and direct the narratives…..Power…. over those who create our laws…and Power…over those who control our purse strings….where and how we spend our money…and toward what goals.

    We live in the age of those triumphant in their power to defraud us, Mr Revulsky….

    Nothing less and nothing more.

    But consider for a moment my memories of 9-11,(and perhaps yours too) I was with my wife and baby daughter, and I recall the news and the image of the first airliner hitting the world trade center. I remember it was perhaps the clearest, most perfect day…not one cloud in the sky…and I recall my horror at how tragic this was…as an accident…

    It was literally and wholly outside my frames of reference, that this could be deliberate…

    It was the closest thing to impossible, in my mind, that this was an attack and not a horrible accident….even after the second plane struck…..it took me a long time to actually get my mind around the fact that this was a deliberate attack.

    So you have to understand, the moral parameters of peoples consciences, Mr Revulsky, regardless of how intelligent they are, in interpreting their capacity to be duped and defrauded.

    If highly intelligent people are easily duped and defrauded, its not because they are idiots, its because they are good.

    Perhaps its our own moral decency that has made us such easy targets for those who have defrauded us.

    And continues to allow it, despite what we have witnessed with our own eyes, even through to today.

    • Replies: , , ,
  23. Forgive me, Mr Revusky, as I realized, just now, that I had been misspelling your name.

  24. Excellent essay! My attempts to point out the physical impossibility of jet fuel melting steel girders has met with exactly the response you predict…. You might have also referenced the Dustin Hoffman movie “Wag the Dog.”

    • Replies:
  25. Another analogy occurs to me…”If you sit down at a table in poker and you can’t figure out who the patsy is, it’s you.”

  26. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    This is a must-read essay by every American who can read. I came across this site just a few months back, and began to read it daily. Thank you!

  27. An enlightening and thought-provoking article, an example of why I visit the Unz Review every day. However, I thought the reference to The Godfather, Goodfellas and WOP was in poor taste. Perhaps Mr. Revsky doesn’t value his kneecaps very much.

    • Replies:
  28. Surely you mean “brack bert”?

  29. My LPM came in the 1990′s when Noam Chomsky(not shilling for him, please) pointed out a tactic of counting how many times a media story is reprinted, and where it appears in news cast, or in print(front page, buried in the middle, in the back). It basically got me looking, and paying attention.
    A few years later there was the Hainan Island incident.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident

    I counted, and read all U.S. Media reports(on a budding Internet) and I read media reports from other countries, and they were different in one major regard – the submarine. The Chinese submarine in the water below the fighter squadron was, across the board, omitted from all the U.S. Media. Was it by chance, or was it a concerted effort? If the latter then it renders the U.S. Media into the realm of pure propaganda. And if it was a concerted effort, why do it in the first place? Would the presence of that submarine in the story have changed American public opinion of the story? Since then I have ever looked at the media the same way – a few months later I was watching the towers in NY come down. A few short hours after the first plane hit, it was obvious the moment I heard it, that the narrative was written LONG before the incident happened, and it hasn’t changed in style, wording, or form since.

    • Replies:
  30. It takes an enormous amount of self-denial, mortification, and philosophical expertise to transcend our basic human bent for tribal thinking, and there are no shortcuts.

    Seems ID still needs a bit of self-mortification and philosophical training to transcend his “basic human bent for tribal thinking”, as is evident from his comment on another thread:

    And yes, I do fully accept that the WTC towers (including Building 7) came crashing down as a result of the damage they incurred in a terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslim hijackers. I believe this not because “the government says so,” but because that is what happened.

    Emphasis added.

    But perhaps ID will explain to us now, why he knows “that is what happened.”

  31. This essay is a useful attempt to come to grips with reality in the information age when the more “information” we have the more we depend on observation, not of reality, but of supposed representations of reality in the form of ink on paper or transient patterns of pixels on video screens.

    If civilization is to be saved, our educational system must replace such nonsense as black history, women’s studies, sex “education” and white shaming with, among other things, an intensive training in what might be called Internet Epistemology, the object of which would be to inculcate an astute skepticism of plutocratic-controlled information outlets, including most of the book publishing and entertainment industries, as well as the so-called news media. This, of course, will never happen.

  32. I’ve got a steel/sheet steel machine in my basement specifically designed to extract the maximum heat from Jet fuel.

    It hasn’t melted once in 18 years.

    My own red pill moment came with Clinton’s excellent adventure in Oklahoma City.

  33. The only lesson the Matrix trilogy had to offer was that racism was so powerful that even AIs are not immune to it.

    Agent Smith, a program which had near human-like hate for humanity, is the only program to cause such wanton destruction in the Matrix that the machines had to ask Neo for help to subdue him (in exchange for Zion to be spared its generational purge).

    Agent Smith is what allowed Zion to be saved. Without Agent Smith Zion would be on its 5th or 6th iteration.

    Racism. It saved the world.

  34. The first time I saw (on tv) the buildings come down I thought why would someone fly a plane into a building and then drop the same building with a controlled demolition. I was baffled when everybody said there was no controlled demolition and I was evil for saying that there was. I argued with people for a couple of years and then I just shut up about it. How otherwise intelligent people could be so stupid was and is a mystery to me. I don’t believe that any amount of reasoning will help. Each of us must be awakened by some event. For me it was the 2000 election when on national television, in real time, in front of God and everybody, the Supreme Court reached way out of its jurisdiction to decide a presidential election. I have learned a lot since then and my bullshit detector is functioning. After all these years there finally appears to be a crack in the seemingly impenetrable wall of ignorance. I am speaking of the public reaction to the Trump/Sanders candidacies. I am not suggesting that this election will save us. Only that the consciousness of the electorate has come up a notch reversing a long decline.

  35. You Mr. Revusky are trying to figure out what “they” are doing, what reality they are weaving together. You always will be few steps behind “them”, as Karl Rove one said: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

    Will your exercise of parsing the reality have any tangible consequence? Or is it just a hobby? Believe me, the hoppy will make you unhappy. It will bring you grief. Because knowledge does not set you free. Only power does. But there is no turning around and returning to the state of bliss. Once you swallow the red pill it is over for you.

    • Replies:
  36. Excellent article.

    The following is a portion of a post I wrote 5 days ago on Robert Weissberg’s most recent article, I think it also germane to this discussion…

    Mr. Weissberg, I have a theory I want to share with you. It is based on something very profound you wrote in “Bad Students, Not Bad Schools” where you stated that a student’s ability to succeed is based on school facilites TIMES teacher quality TIMES the student’s intelligence. The multiplicative (as opposed to additive) nature of the equation explains why a dumb kid will never succeed academically no matter what you do, a million times a billion times zero is still zero.

    Anyway, I modified this equation as follows:

    Ability to reach the proper conclusion regarding controversial matters= .2 (education) x .3 (intelligence) x .5 (intuition)

    Intuition in this context is sort of a catch-all term but refers to espousing a correspondence version of truth vs. a constructivist version of “truth”, being a philosophical realist vs. a nominalist, being truth-seeking vs. being an ideologically-addled bullshitter (see Harry Frankfurt’s “On Bullshit”), and being a theist vs. atheist (they don’t call it Cultural Marxism for nothing).

    Anyway, I think your HIQI is someone with high levels of education and intelligence but little to no intuition.

    Your BDQ concept is also very insightful, it is too bad there is no accepted way to measure it. But you asuume in your article that the average person’s BDQ is 100. But the average person’s IQ is not 100, the average WHITE person’s IQ is 100. That is one of the foundational points of HBD, that the average IQ of the races differ.

    What if BDQ is no exception? That is to say, what if there are average group differences in BDQ, but in this case it is whites who are on the low end of the spectrum? This seems to me a plausible explanation of the HIQI phenomenon, the ubiquity of BS in America and the West, the inability of most whites to see through neo-conservatism, Cultural Marxism, etc.

    I remember in the run-up to the Iraq war (which seemed to me at the time to OBVIOUSLY be based on the most transparent BS) how NO non-white I ever met fell for the propaganda about WMD or Saddam being responsible for 9/11 in the slightest, every non-white figured it was really about oil or Israel or the revenge of Bush Jr. Maybe our higher BDQ saved us?

    Also, this might also explain why it is mainly whites that seem to fall for the BS that is produced specifically in the service of Jewish ethnic activism? (most of your recent examples fall in this category)

    Just some random thoughts I guess, thanks for an insightful article though.

    • Replies:
  37. “If highly intelligent people are easily duped and defrauded, its not because they are idiots, its because they are good.” Exactly.

  38. Right-O, utu, right-O !

    • Replies:
  39. An excellent introduction of helpful terminology. I had already figured out for myself how important it was to notice and not dismiss “Roger Rabbit artifacts”, as you aptly dub them, but the way you frame everything here really clarifies the attitude people need to have.

    Building 7 needs to be explained, and I notice when something that needs to be explained is dismissed without explanation. That is the “tell”–not the false narrative, because people can come up with false narratives naturally when the facts are unclear, but the pretending that a valid question was either never raised in the first place, or already answered somehow, rather than addressing it.

    It’s very important, as other commenters here noted, not to cling to tightly to specific counter-narratives. There is something fishy about 9/11, but there is no reason to doubt that the planes were actually hijacked, because nothing else can explain the disappearance of all the passengers. There is also no reason to doubt the involvement of Mohammed Atta and the others. But who was ultimately behind the conspiracy is certainly open.

    The pancaking style vertical collapse of the Twin Towers isn’t all that implausible (I have investigated the physics of this myself) but there are unexplained questions about Building 7 and about the Shanksville crash site. I pose no theories myself but I suppose we will have to wait for a President who cares about the truth before we really know.

    • Replies: ,
  40. “At the time of this writing, the recent (November 2015) events in Paris are still quite topical. The French authorities claim now that the terrorist mastermind was a young man, an ethnic Arab named Abdelhamid Abaaoud…[google image link]…We should strive not to speak ill of the dead, but look at the photos: does this fearsome terrorist mastermind look capable of masterminding the tying of his own shoelaces? I think not.”

    Well, since you ask, yes – he does look perfectly capable of tying his own shoelaces. I mean, what would you expect a murderous jihadi to look like? Hannibal Lecter? Professor Moriarty? أبو الوليد ?محمد ابن احمد ابن رشد ?

    And this is the sole reason Mr. Revusky offers for believing that the “events in Paris” were faked?

    Pathetic.

    • Replies:
  41. good for…

  42. Mr. Revusky also believes that the Charlie Hebdo massacre was faked:

    “When I first saw the news about Charlie Hebdo, I concluded very quickly that it was some sort of staged event, a ‘false flag’.”

    Offered reason? because the stuff the killers shouted didn’t live up to his literary standards:

    “Once I saw the cheesy Hollywood B film dialogue — “Allahu Akhabar! The Prophet is avenged!” — that nailed it for me. I said sarcastically to whoever would listen: “What is it with that B film dialogue? Were the guys who staged this on a tight budget? Couldn’t they hire better scriptwriters?”

    Again, I can’t help wondering, what would he expect? Selections from the The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám?

    What a maroon.

    • Replies:
  43. What we see in 911 is singular and exceptional. Other “hoaxes” don’t come close.

    Disagree.

    There’s at least one other “hoax” somewhere between the Sicarii mentioned by alexander @ #22 and 09/11/2001.

    If the events of September 11, 2001 were a hoax then Charles Lindbergh was correct in his speech of September 11, 1941.

  44. Speaking of maroons.

    How moronic was it for the alleged Perps in the Hebdo shooting to leave their ID in the getaway car, after having gotten away…just about free and clear ?

    Lord knows we all carry our IDs on us when we blow away innocent people and want to get away with it…don’t we Mr Vinteuil ?

    Perhaps the utter stupidity of carrying out such an attack is only followed by the utter stupidity of leaving your identification behind….. so we know its you.

    Or perhaps we are all just even more pathetically stupid then they, to accept one more cowardly act of Terror Fraud……. heaped in our faces, yet again ?

    • Replies: , ,
  45. Please don’t waste people’s time with “random thoughts” if you can’t be bothered to work out that .2 x .3 x .5 equals 0.03 or somewhat short of the 1 which is presumably your peak ability to reach the right conclusion.

    • Replies:
  46. How moronic was it for the alleged Perps in the Hebdo shooting to leave their ID in the getaway car, after having gotten away…just about free and clear ?

    Didn’t one of the passports of the 9/11 “hijackers” flutter gracefully, and undamaged down to the Manhattan street, from the massive fireball seen around the world a few hundred feet up?

    http://911blogger.com/news/2011-11-14/fbi-agent-dan-coleman-explains-how-passport-911-hijacker-satam-al-suqami-was-found

    • Replies: ,
  47. 1. There are CIA operatives in every newspaper (check it out). 2. Almost all newspapers and media are owned by Zionists, who are of one mind, basically, and it’s not the humanistic mind.

  48. “It’s very important, as other commenters here noted, not to cling to tightly to specific counter-narratives. There is something fishy about 9/11, but there is no reason to doubt that the planes were actually hijacked, because nothing else can explain the disappearance of all the passengers. There is also no reason to doubt the involvement of Mohammed Atta and the others. But who was ultimately behind the conspiracy is certainly open.”

    A document called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century” published by The American Enterprise’s “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC), called for “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” being necessary to foster the frame of mind needed for the American public to support a war in the Middle East that would politically and culturally reshape the region.

    System Planning Corporation (SPC) International executive, Rabbi Dov Zakheim, a respected and established voice in the intelligence community, went from his position at Systems Planning Corporation to become the Comptroller of the Pentagon in May 2001. (Perhaps not so coincidentally, it was an SPC subsidiary, TRIDATA CORPORATION, that oversaw the investigation after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.)

    System Planning Corporation, according to their official website, specializes in many areas of defense technology production and manufacture, including a system developed by their Radar Physics Group called the Flight Termination System, or FTS. This is a system used to destroy target drones (craft that would be fired on by test aircraft or weaponry) in the event of malfunction or “misses”. This highly sophisticated war-game technology allows the control of several ‘drones’ from a remote location, on varying frequencies, and has a range of several hundred miles. This “remote control” technology can be used on many different types of aircraft, including large passenger jets.

    According to the SPC website, a recent customer at that time was Eglin AFB, located in Florida. Eglin is very near another Air Force base in Florida – MacDill AFB, where Dov Zakheim contracted to send at least 32 Boeing 767 aircraft, as part of the Boeing /Pentagon tanker lease agreement.

    As the events of September 11, 2001 occurred, and were being investigated, little was mentioned about these strange connections, and the possible motives and proximity of Dov Zakheim and his group. Since there was little physical evidence remaining after the events, investigators were left only with photographic and anecdotal evidence.

    • Replies:
  49. Does ‘moral decency’ not require as part of its ‘internal equipment’ an awareness of evil? If not, that is the biggest naivete.

  50. I hope JR is young enough to go through another revolution in thinking as he gets over the first shock of discovering that he might not know most of the truth without doing some careful thinking for himself.

    For those who think there’s something conclusively sinister about that ID being found in a car after the Charlie Hebdo massacre I can assure them they just have’t lived enough. I could cite a dozen examples easily of ordinary everyday human error explaining the little oddities like that. E.g. the four tax returns handed personally to a tax office person (because they were late and being accepted as a special concession in particular circumstances). A year later they were not to be found when the taxpayer again sought an extension for lodgment. E.g. I find a successful small business owner rushing back to the Post Office because he has left his whole bunch of keys together with USB stick and electronic security key sticking in the lock of his PO Box when he got distracted by a misaddressed letter… Etc. and many etcs.

    As for 9/11 I have never heard a version involving some Americans who wanted to provide a casus belli blamed on Middle Easterners that remotely makes sense. Set aside the loonies who don’t think planes flown by Arabs hit the twin towers and Pentagon, how could anyone expect there to be more than one in a million chance that they would achieve any useful defined result (presumably for Israel’s aim to further Balkanise the ME, let alone get access to ME oil that they couldn’t get more economically by buying it) by committing an outrage that must never be disclosed by a Bradley Manning, would have been adequately outrageous even if, say, the smashed Pentagon and still standing Twin Towers had been hit, and only uncertainly led to the all important attack on Iraq?

    And there is a strange omission to note the likely genuiness of most of the USIL horror videos (which I admit to not examining) if there is any plausibility in the theory that ISIL finds them effective in recruiting the disaffected or troubled young. At least genuinely from ISIL.

    • Replies: ,
  51. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    One thing I noticed a long time ago was that many people who presumably have a good level of intelligence because they are in professions that require it, such as physician, lawyer, engineer, etc, are often very narrow people. They know the nuts and bolts of their jobs, sometimes really well and have gained recognition for that, but once they go outside of that they’re lost. Sometimes I’ve thought that this narrowness has been encouraged so as to keep people focused on being productive within their own sector without making connections to anything else and connecting the dots; everyone is compartmentalized into their own little sector.
    Supposed smart people, with credentials, can often be frustratingly dense. One person I knew said ‘they’re so smart they’re stupid’. It’s true. That’s why sometimes one shouldn’t allow themselves to be blinded by someone’s stature or presumed great intelligence. HIQI is a useful term. SI for Smart Idiot is shorter and more frugal with letters.

  52. Check it out? How?

  53. Weren’t there thousands of documents which fluttered down from the upper floors of the Twin Towers on 9/11? Why wouldn’t most or many be undamaged? Wouldn’t you expect passports to stand out and be picked up ahead of most other docs?

    An afterthought. Wouldn’t it be plausible that a highjacker who wanted his glorious martyrdom to be known – or just the performance off his assigned task – to wrap up his passport and place it in a way which would give it a good or at least some chance of being found?

    • Replies:
  54. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    you guys always think you are right. that is why nobody listens when you talk about these things. no matter what, you see yourself as the enlightened “truth seekers” and the other person is just a sheep. this is no way to debate something and DEFINITELY not a way to get more people on your side (that should be the goal after all… right?)
    if you don’t like living in modern society go build a commune in south america and see how that goes for you. nobody wants to hear you talk about how much smarter you think you are than everyone else.

  55. It’s not that deep, if a pig cannot fly then it did not fly.

    so essentially:

    - The government’s laughable & impossible 9/11 conspiracy theory is what now drives US / Israeli policies.

    - ’9/11′ has been an immensely profitable scam for various players in the US and Israel.

    - ’9/11′ provides excuses for our disastrous & mass murdering foreign policy of both the US & Israel.

    - ’9/11′ provides excuses for the theft of our constitutional rights.

    - ’9/11′ provides excuses for the enormous & continuous increase in government power.

    Yet the US govt. cannot change laws of physics, the government’s bizarre conspiracy theory is impossible.

    And it’s an established scientific fact that military grade nano-thermite was used in the 9/11 attack.
    Military grade nano-thermite was found at the WTC by the USGS & Niels Harrit of Univ. of Copenhagen, and 8 more scientists.

    http://www.ae911truth.org

    ‘Muslims in caves’ cannot make military grade nano-thermite.

    What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7

    http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/#beyond-misinformation

  56. The problem is there are so many dingbat “conspiracy theorists” who proclaim the “truth”, as they see it, that it all becomes noise after awhile. The 9/11 truth scene is especially bad about that. No, I don’t believe the official government narrative of the event, but I also have a hard time believing most “truthers” are anywhere technically competent enough interpret the event anyway. Yeah, I get the argument jet fuel can’t melt girders. Cool. But what about the holistic physics of an airliner hitting a building? No structural weakness will happen? Even engineers and physicists who would have specialization in or around his area will admit there’s not much literature on the physics of of a big ass ballistic object hitting a building.

    But I’m supposed to believe some armchair investigator on YouTube who didn’t even bother to read the 9/11 Commission Report (because he/she just knows it’s propaganda)? It’s one thing to question everything, but it’s something else altogether when most of these people can’t bother to look at both sides. Any argument against or disagreement with them just feeds their confirmation bias. You see the same thing in leftist media an education all the time (oh, you believe there’s a wage gap or that blacks commit most murders or that illegal immigrants aren’t great? Hey! You’re a piece of racist crap!).

    • Replies:
  57. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    speaking of morooonic –

    didn’t the attack at the kosher grocery take place a few days later and in a far different locale than the original Charlie Hebdo attack? Like an afterthought — the Ay-rabs sed to theirseff’s, “In for a centime, in for a franc; let’s kill some Jews.”

    Or was it the case that Bibi sed to hisself, “What’s goin’ on here; no Jewish victims?”

    In record time, Jewish victims were produced; the perpetrators were killed, a tribute to the efficiency of Paris police; Bibi gets headlines about whether he will or won’t go to Paris; he goes to Paris, he hogs the limelight (pigs may not have wings but they frequently have elbows); the Jewish victims were dramatically and mournfully transported to Israel for burial (in coffins with adequate vent holes, one hopes).

    Never let a crisis go to waste.

    • Replies: ,
  58. Actually, you’d be amazed at the amount of highly-intact debris found at the sites of major crashes and explosions.

    • Replies: , ,
  59. Perhaps the utter stupidity of carrying out such an attack is only followed by the utter stupidity of leaving your identification behind….. so we know its you.

    Well, of course they don’t leave their IDs behind. They leave behind the IDs of the people who are to be framed for the attack, the patsies.

    I wonder… What level BDQ are people supposed to have to figure that one out? It really ought to only require a BDQ of 80, I’d say. But apparently it requires much higher than that…

    • Replies:
  60. Actually, you’d be amazed at the amount of highly-intact debris found at the sites of major crashes and explosions.

    Which makes it that much more remarkable that no bodies were found at the crash site in Shanksville, PA.

    The area around the Shanksville crash site had been used for strip-mining. Before the area was converted into a rather forlorn ‘memorial,’ the roadway to the coal mining equipment was just a football field off the access road to the crash site.

    The memorial has been built far distant from any supposed crash site. No actual, on-the-ground evidence of a crash is visible from the memorial.

    nb. the neighborhood around the 93 site is rural, not very wealthy at all — not unlikely folks who are more akin to Ludek’s housekeeper than to Ludek.

    • Replies:
  61. I don’t know whether the ISIS beheadings of a couple of Western journalists in Syria were real or staged

    Why specifically do you not know? You watched the videos and couldn’t decide? Or you just didn’t watch them?

    (Revusky may be right about it being the latter)

    So you accept the possibility that beheading videos were staged by a third party, maybe as the article I linked stated, by a company that does its filming in Mexico or Spain? Interesting….

    but it’s a definite fact that both ISIS and the other jihadi terrorist groups HAVE been doing a lot of beheading,

    But hold on a sec, here. Why would it be necessary to make fake beheading videos if there really is all this bona fide beheading going on?

    Also, why would they behead all these people when they can just shoot them and it’s so much less work? Because its more gruesome, no? But that only matters if you have witnesses, i.e. you film it and show it to everybody, right? If there was nobody filming, you would surely just execute people the easier way, by machine gunning them, no?

    So, again, why would there be fake beheading videos?To put it bluntly… how much have you really thought about this?

    The other question I posed about the beheading videos, you don’t address. The beheading videos allegedly come form the “Islamic State”, right? Have you seen any other Islamic State propaganda? Why don’t they make propaganda showing themselves doing good things? I mean, if you look at all the communist propaganda from the Stalin time, it’s all about all the wonderful things they’re doing for people, same with the Nazi propaganda. Why would a political group make propaganda solely devoted to convincing you that they are a bunch of evil barbarians?

    Have you thought about this? I mean, really thought about it….

    • Replies: , , , ,
  62. Ah, yes… and Justice Scalia died peacefully in his sleep of natural causes, just by happenstance at the secluded ranch of an Obama donor in Obama’s last year in office. Pure coincidence.

    Well… this right here just pegged my bullshit detection meter to the max…

    http://www.infowars.com/video-obama-cracks-joke-about-scalias-death/

    • Replies: ,
  63. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"]
    says:
    • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Jonathan:

    Apparently you allow that some pigs do in fact fly.

    The conspicuous absence of the utterly impossible ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ in your otherwise interesting lament is revealing.

    Dare to examine the absurd & laughable ‘holocaust’ storyline rationally, logically, and scientifically and it falls apart like the house-of-cards that it is.

    http://forum.codoh.com

    One should not ask, how this mass murder was made possible. It was technically possible, because it happened. This has to be the obligatory starting-point for any historical research regarding this topic. We would just like to remind you: There is no debate regarding the existence of the gas chambers, and there can never be one.
    - endorsed by 34 “reputable historians” and published in the French daily Le Monde on February 21, 1979

    Who Profits?

    • Replies:
  64. I could cite a dozen examples easily of ordinary everyday human error explaining the little oddities like that

    Well, you’re a very imaginative fellow, it seems. All of these bizarre cases of passports or ID being found at the crime scene all have various quirky little innocent explanations, eh? Well, how about this?

    The passport found at ground zero was planted to frame the patsies.

    The ID cards found in the getaway car in the Charlie Hebdo psy-op were left there to frame the patsies.

    The passport found intact from a suicide bomber at the last Paris psy-op was also planted there to frame the patsies.

    The next time a passport is magically found at the scene, you will have to come up with some other imaginative explanation. And I won’t have to because I’ll have the same one:

    The passport was planted there to frame the patsies.

    You see, that’s the essence of what BDQ is largely about. Pattern recognition. You see the same bullshit over and over again and you recognize the patterns.

    (Blah blah blah blah)…. blah blah….
    And there is a strange omission to note the likely genuiness of most of the USIL horror videos (which I admit to not examining)

    “Strange omission”, eh? Isn’t not watching a video and then arguing on some speculative grounds that it is likely to be genuine a “strange omission”?

    • Replies:
  65. Have you seen any other Islamic State propaganda? Why don’t they make propaganda showing themselves doing good things?

    There’s a lot of pro-ISIL videos, they just get taken down by YouTube.

    There was a really high quality version of this, with like HD effects in the maternity ward and everything:

    I can’t find the original piece, YouTube takes down the oddest things I’ve noticed (every high-quality video of a T-90 jamming a TOW in Syria is on that list for whatever reason).

    But yeah there’s a lot of those stupid pro-Islamic State propaganda. All one has to do is just look at their magazine (Dabiq) which has excellent quality in pictures and presentation and presents everything in a positive light.

    Link to the magazines, you don’t have to download them (no need to make more “jobs” at the NSA), but the cover pages should give you an idea:

    http://www.clarionproject.org/news/islamic-state-isis-isil-propaganda-magazine-dabiq

  66. RRBum ?

  67. An enlightening and thought-provoking article, an example of why I visit the Unz Review every day.

    Thank you for the kind words.

    However, I thought the reference to The Godfather, Goodfellas and WOP was in poor taste.

    Well, quite possibly it was. It was not meant to offend you. Really, it wasn’t. The thing is that the essay is quite long and there is the feeling that, to be readable, it should have bits of comic relief interspersed, that’s all.

    Gee, I wonder… what is your ethnic background??

    Perhaps Mr. Revsky doesn’t value his kneecaps very much.

    Oh, no sir, I do value my kneecaps very much so.

    Oddly enough, I make much more offensive wisecracks regularly and am well into middle age with my kneecaps intact. Maybe the thing is that I try, as much as possible, to only associate with people who possess a sense of humor. Not as a matter of principle, mind you. It’s just that life is more enjoyable that way.

    Anyway, I’m glad you enjoyed the article overall.

  68. I think that you are insane. But the fact that the Unz site publishes you gives me hope. I am glad that you have space to say what you think. And who knows, perhaps something you have said may be true.

    All the best.

  69. My hat is off to you Jonathan Revusky. And my apologies for hitting you over the head on some occasions (but not others.)

    I’m glad you liked the article, Ronald.

    To tell the truth, I have generally found your belligerence towards me to be rather puzzling. But, never mind, I’m willing to try to reset our relationship. Really.

    Insofar as the disinformation matrix, I would add beware of those specialists who persevere in attacking false narrative with alternative false narrative,

    Oh yes, definitely. The whole gatekeeper/controlled opposition sort of problem is a very big related topic. And I don’t really address it in this essay. I wrote quite a bit of text but still left quite a bit unsaid.

  70. Sorry Jonathan, but real jihadis are decapitating real people in the Mid East. Go to LiveLeak and several other sources and watch them all the way through. Nothing staged about any of it.
    There is a fine line between acceptance of large scale criminal conspiracies up to and including false flag operations and disinfo, but sometimes a cigar is really a cigar, and there are definitely some unhinged muslims doing some outrageous things. You can even watch video from Saudi Arabia where beheading is used as punishment for criminal activity. There is no shortage of real footage of real muslims engaging in this type of activity.
    Every single god damned crime that happens on Earth is not a false flag.
    Again, not questioning the reality of government conspiracies and PsyOps/disinfo, but western governments are not all powerful and all knowing, despite their interest in creating such a belief amongst the sheep.

    • Replies:
  71. Forget your appeal to authority, forget the ‘incompetent’, see:

    Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

    http://www.ae911truth.org

    Thousands of engineers, architects, technical people of all kinds are involved.

    What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7:

    http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/#beyond-misinformation

  72. What’s wrong with applying Ockham’s Razor to conclude that the most likely cause of the beheading videos, whether subject to more or less professional special effects or not, is that they are designed to terrify, to demonstrate ISIS’s success and power, and to inspire a particular kind of disturbed young person to join them?

    As to the supposed anomaly of there being no good works ISIS propaganda films, you may be right that there are none – and it may be simply that you haven’t come across them because neither ISIS, nor the MSM think their audiences will be grabbed by them – but that should raise the question why? Is it because there are in fact no genuine ISIS videos? That seems consistent with your reasoning. Alternatively isn’t it reasonable to start with the apparent fact that ISIL claims credit for some terrorist outrages, it doesn’t repudiate the beheading videos and it doesn’t propagate good works videos. Then a reasonable attempt at analysis would start with asking what that tells you about ISIS, its leadership and the way it wants to be perceived
    BTW, what kind of good works videos do you have in mind as the likely output of the ISIS of your imagination which doesn’t conduct gruesome massacres?

    • Replies:
  73. “Weren’t there thousands of documents which fluttered down from the upper floors of the Twin Towers on 9/11? Why wouldn’t most or many be undamaged? Wouldn’t you expect passports to stand out and be picked up ahead of most other docs?”

    BECAUSE IT WAS ON THE FUQING PLANE WHICH BURST INTO A COMBUSTION FIREABLL, WITH, YOU KNOW, THE ACTUAL “HIJACKER” IT BELONGED TO!

    “An afterthought. Wouldn’t it be plausible that a highjacker who wanted his glorious martyrdom to be known – or just the performance off his assigned task – to wrap up his passport and place it in a way which would give it a good or at least some chance of being found?”

    “Hey Ahmad, don’t forget to bring that Asbestos briefcase that you will launch through the window you break, just before we hit the WTC…”

    • Replies: ,
  74. It doesn’t take imagination it only takes some life experience of human errors, not least by criminals, and of the way people obsessively latch on to odd details and repeat them over and over again to make one say “well that’s all totally inconclusive so let’s look at different approaches (including tracing out the necessary or probable consequences of the various hypotheses)”.

    And you effectually misquote me towards the end by omitting my words to the effect “if the videos are calculated by ISIL to inspire disturbed or disaffected young people to join it”. As I have pointed out later where are the ISIL denials? Or don’t they make videos at all? (Which would be one explanation for why they don’t have any of their good works, in case you really wonder about that).

  75. ‘Or was it the case that Bibi said to himself, “What’s going’ on here; no Jewish victims?”’ – you are right about it. (Even though Charlie Hebdo is the 100% zionist outfit most French do not seem to perceive it. There is another color pill one must take to see zionist and Jewish things that surround d us. The French need it too.) So, the November 2015 Paris attacks were staged on the late evening on Friday. This minimized a chance of having Jewish victims and certainly excluded Jewish orthodox victims as to not mess up the narrative. The attack was meant to be on French and not just on Jews. As the result of Charlie Hebdo some French orthodox Jews made aliyah while the aircraft carrier de Gaulle stayed put in but after November 2015 attach the aircraft carrier sailed for Syria and then Persian Gulf.

  76. So the fire at the Pentagon was soooo hotttt, that it incenerated every trace of an airplane, but one letter and one wheel: wings, engines, bodies, seats, luggage, clothing, instruments, etc. But a passport makes it, intact, from a fire hot enough to melt high-temperature steel girders?

    Yeah, I’m done here.

  77. …Well, the guy was 79 and fat.

    Sometimes shit just happens.

  78. Maybe so, but seems to me that the testing that determines the IQ’s isn’t vary thourough enough.

    Maybe the testing is aimed for certain characteristics, and not a full range, of ”intelligence”, such as the smarts to see through the conveinient lies… like those that you allude to. To busy figuring how to make a square object fit into a round hole, (and please teacher!) and missing the bunga bunga moves and who gets the girl? ?

  79. You should get your brain into gear before you cite the apparently callous way that the President made indirect reference to Scalia’s death – certainly eschewing hypocrisy – as if it supported your suggestion that Scalia was murdered. That is just plain silly.

    I knew Scalia personally, not well, and certainly not so as to share his views on anything I can think of, but well enough to believe he died from the natural causes likely to kill an overweight underexercised man of 79. Doesn’t it strike you as significant that his family didn’t want an autopsy? They included a priest son, a widow with views on abortion directly opposed to the President’s and two successful DC lawyer sons. Come off it! You give conspiracy theorists a bad name.

  80. I’m sure you realise this needs following up… How did the actual perpetrators get hold of the ID (has anyone BTW suggested it wasn’t genuine?) that was found?

    And unless you are an almost lone genius seeing the possible significance of misplaced ID docs there would be plenty of questions being asked about where those ID docs had been over the previous days and weeks. If not, why not? Because the initial questions were satisfactorily answered perhaps.

    I know it seems unfair to expect people in their agitated hermit’s cell to cover the whole ground of suspicious circumstances but one is entitled to ask even Aristotle why he was so sure that the male and female foetuses “quickened” at 40 and 90 days respectively after conception, or as to the shape of the earth, etc.

    • Replies:
  81. Have you seen the pictures of a couple of Australian kids standing with their jihadist ISIS father in Syria holding up severed heads. There may have been more than one similar case but the most striking was one where the horrified grandparents in Australia were interviewed so the identification was pretty clear. Not professionally produced videos but entirely consistent with the view that some significant number of ISIS figures want to portray the savagery it is capable of. Come to think of it, if you doubt the genuineness of ISIS self portrayals of fearful savagery doesn’t that require you to doubt the substance of reports of their treatment of Yazidis, rape and enslavement of the women etc. If so where have your doubts led you in your inquiries?

  82. One time I lost my keys and ended up finding them in the freezer. Go figure.

    • Replies:
  83. Please don’t waste people’s time with sarcastic comments, particularly if you aren’t smart enough to understand what the equation signifies, and instead just multiplied the 3 numbers you saw like a fourth-grader.

    • Replies:
  84. Yes you would probably believe the family legend firmly propagated by my wife that, some 25 years ago (well before…. you know) I put my tennis shoes in the refrigerator.

    Come to think of it many of my worst losses of wallets, credit cards, keys etc. have been the result of fatigue and stress typically after long flights and/or long car trips on top of long flights or other travel.

    And I was just on the point of getting a passport replaced when it turned up under some cushions on a chaise longue. At my tennis club I have accepted the advice to put my car keys with wallet and phone in a locker so the oxygen deprivation from hard exercise won’t cause my brain to allow me to drive off in the car without the wallet and phone. Aha, but I do remember a time when I deliberately left a political candidate’s carefully selected private financial record where a political opponent would see it and very likely fall into the trap of misusing it…. I just tend to prefer to accept the dictum that if the choice is between a cockup and a conspiracy you should, cet.par., put your money on the cockup.

    • Replies:
  85. The article is interesting in another way. A few years ago I tried to go find some Mensa folk and ask them what they think happened. Mensa is the high IQ group. Mensa used to have a chat room. They actually could figure this out fairly quickly or at least have an intelligent argument, which I could then parse and form my own conclusion.

    But here is the interesting part. You can’t talk about these issues in academia or other professions without risking your job. That is really a big deal. When it gets to the point where people are so afraid they can’t even talk freely amongst colleagues, including tenured faculty at universities, something is very, very wrong.

    Mensa is gone. Don’t know where they went or why. Maybe I should put an ad on Craigslist.

    Desperately seeking Mensa.

  86. I understand there were never any bodies recovered from the flight 93 Shanskville ‘plane crash’. Isn’t that curious?

    They planned for flight 93 to hit Building Seven as the pretext for it to collapse, and when it was shot out of the air, they had to scramble for damage control. Shooting a missile into that existing scar in the ground was a desperate act to indicate where the plane crashed, with the whole improvised ‘let’s roll’ narrative as an afterthought. ‘We need a hero!’ some psyop pr expert from Langley no doubt chimed in.

    I wonder how many people commenting on this excellent article are sincere believers of the 911 Commission Report vs. the shills trying to do damage control.

    as an aside, I’m sure JR recognizes that some of the videos coming out of the horrors happening in Iraq and Syria are genuine, like the Al Nusra cannibal eating the still warm organ of the soldier. But he also makes an excellent point about the Wag the Dog – like production stuff that’s clearly CIA psyop stuff. Like the “Osama” videos.

    And in closing, the most salient piece of evidence I know of that 911 was obviously a false flag is the way the media reported on building seven falling before it did, proving advance knowledge of an event that no human could possibly have predicted, unless it had been wired for demolition.

    Forget the ‘dancing Israelis, forget the chimp sitting in that classroom, forget the anomalies at the Pentagon, forget the missing bodies in Pennsylvania, forget it all. All you need to do is know that the BBC and Fox News reported on the collapse of building seven before it collapsed. They knew they were bringing it down, but they f’d up and reported it too soon.

    Now our task is simply to find a way to hold those responsible accountable. A new investigation and to spread articles like this one as far and widely as possible.

    • Replies:
  87. Sorry Jonathan, but real jihadis are decapitating real people in the Mid East. Go to LiveLeak and several other sources and watch them all the way through. Nothing staged about any of it.

    So you’re just going to make this claim and not provide a single link? Everything I see is as fake as six dollar bill.

    The other strange thing is, as I asked somebody else: if there is all this bona fide beheading going on, why do they make all these fake beheading videos?

    Do you have an answer for that?

    You can even watch video from Saudi Arabia where beheading is used as punishment for criminal activity.

    It’s true that Saudi Arabia (a staunch U.S. ally) like the U.S. itself, has the death penalty, and (unlike the U.S.) carries out capital punishment by beheading. But that has basically nothing to do with whether the Jihadi John and Jihadi Joseph videos are fake, which they are.

    Every single god damned crime that happens on Earth is not a false flag.

    Straw man much?

    • Replies:
  88. I’m sure you realise this needs following up… How did the actual perpetrators get hold of the ID

    Let me get this straight. You are willing to believe in the magic passport that survived the fireball yet you are now going to express incredulity that the people behind a false flag can get their hands on ID for the patsies to frame them?

    Wow. Just wow. You know, I’ve really got to stop replying to your bullshit. It’s tempting because it’s too easy to knock off a reply. But the thing is that some other commenters here have raised some thoughtful points and I really should sit down and work up some replies to them rather thna replying to your bad-faithed BS. It’s a distraction.

    (has anyone BTW suggested it wasn’t genuine?) that was found?

    Actually, I believe it has been established that the Syrian passport found at the recent Paris event was fake.

    And unless you are an almost lone genius seeing the possible significance of

    No, I’m not a “lone genius” or even “almost” who sees through all this bullshit. There are plenty of other people who see through it.

    Because the initial questions were satisfactorily answered perhaps.

    Yes, they were satisfactorily answered. The “satisfactory” answer was: “You guys are conspiracy theorists! Nya nya nya!” Satisfactory answer for the likes of you in any case…

    • Replies:
  89. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    I’ll add some material to the subject of the execution porn videos being discussed. Anybody notice that in this Middle East location all the prisoners are wearing American-style orange jumpsuits just like in American prisons? Does ISIS have a contract with some California prison supply outfit that sells that type of clothing? Videos of various executions that have taken place at earlier times in the general area usually show prisoners being killed wearing whatever clothes they were wearing at the time of capture. This seems rather peculiar.
    Initially, after 9-11, Osama bin Laden was reported to have denied any connection to it. Then later on videos were released in which he took credit. Anomalies in his appearance have been pointed out so it’s possible those videos are fakes. The US government claimed to have been looking for him for years when in fact he was living in Pakistan as a secret guest of that government. The US government must have known where he was all along since with a bit of money waved around there would be any number of Pakistanis willing to pass along the information. That’s assuming the US and Pakistan governments weren’t in collusion on this to begin with. The story about all those dogged hunters for him finally pinning him down is just a good cover story, more propaganda BS from the US government featuring some genius female tracker which serves as a recruitment enticement: ‘Hey girls, be all you can be and join the military. Exciting jobs available.’ If they could bundle up a dead body they could have done so with a live one. Think of what a treasure trove of information a live bin Laden would have been, a prize beyond compare. But, dead men tell no tales and that’s what they wanted.

    • Replies: , ,
  90. What’s wrong with applying Ockham’s Razor to conclude that the most likely cause of the beheading videos,

    And what is wrong with actually watching said videos to determine whether they are fake or not?

    It’s funny how you guys keep referring to Occam’s razor. Somehow “applying Occam’s razor” always involves believing whatever bullshit, not disbelieving it. So, presumably, if little Johnny says he did his homework but the dog ate it, then if we think little Johnny is lying, we are not “applying Occam’s razor”.

    BTW, what kind of good works videos do you have in mind as the likely output of the ISIS of your imagination which doesn’t conduct gruesome massacres?

    Well, they could show videos of how people who were previously hungry and homeless are now well fed and have a home. They could have some other video showing how some poor woman lived a degraded existence selling herself on the streets, but now she is a good Muslim woman, they found a good Muslim man to marry her and she is devout and goes to the mosque.

    Well, whatever… what are you asking me? Heck, they could show themselves helping little old ladies cross the street.

    Actually, the whole idea that a political movement exclusively puts out propaganda to portray themselves as evil is a clear sign of a Roger Rabbit narrative. It is characteristic of a cartoon villain that he is evil in his own mind. In reality, people, in their own minds, consider themselves to be good.

    Regardless of what nasty things they really do, real propaganda of a real Islamic State would focus on the good things they do (or claim to do) for people. It would not be an endless series of beheadings and atrocities.

    • Replies: ,
  91. The US government claimed to have been looking for him for years when in fact he was living in Pakistan as a secret guest of that government.

    Well, that’s the current narrative. But actually, I think he was dead already. The real Bin Laden (as opposed to the comic book Roger Rabbit character) had a lot of health problems. He likely died in late 2001. To me, that’s the Occam’s razor explanation of why they couldn’t find him. Otherwise, somebody would have ratted him out for the 25 million dollar reward surely.

    Think of what a treasure trove of information a live bin Laden would have been, a prize beyond compare.

    Well, that’s assuming that their narrative is truthful and that he really was this incredible terrorist mastermind. If he was just a patsy, as I suspect, then he would not have been any treasure trove of information. That also is consistent with the seeming lack of genuine interest in taking him alive — assuming he really was alive, that is, which I doubt…

    • Replies:
  92. Don’t waste your breath (and time) on provocations from WoO.

    • Replies:
  93. For the most exceptional Christian nation;
    http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151118/1030307330/assad-putin-christianity.html
    Ouch!

    • Replies:
  94. Well, since you ask, yes – he does look perfectly capable of tying his own shoelaces.

    It’s hard to believe that you really are such a numbnut that you don’t understand that this is a figure of speech. For example, when certain people said that George Bush was so dumb he couldn’t walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, do you think that was meant literally?

    And this is the sole reason Mr. Revusky offers for believing that the “events in Paris” were faked?

    No, that Abelhamid definitely looks like a doofus is not the sole reason to think that he is a patsy, an Oswald. There are other dead giveaways. However, I will decline to outline them at this point.

    No, as I said in the article, if you are claiming that the pictured kid is a terrorist mastermind, it is up to you tell us what the evidence for this is. If you accuse somebody of something, it is not up to me to prove the negative. You have to provide some evidence of the accusation.

    What specifically is the evidence for this? Oh, and note that the evidence cannot be evidence that is equally consistent with him being a patsy as actually being guilty.

    • Replies: ,
  95. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    This, by far, is one of the most unusual and outstanding essays I have come across over the past several years of exercising my BDQ. The length seemed daunting at first but it is so readable throughout that I doubt it could have been made much shorter. Indeed, I had a moment of regret when it ended. The way one feels at the end of a gripping mega novel that immerses the reader in another time and place so deeply that he or she is reluctant to get back to the real world.

    Jonathan’s essay is of course anything but a piece of fiction. Most facts it narrates are familiar to people like me. What makes it different is the approach, a certain frame of mind. Like putting on the glasses in They Live. Jonathan’s humor flows effortlessly over the undercurrent of a sordid reality.

    My compliments to you, Jonathan. If you have other essays, as you doubtless must, I shall appreciate knowing where to find them.

  96. For anyone who would be interested, a former military guy gives a blow-by-blow account of his personal LPM in this article.

    https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/thirteen-years-ago-my-life-changed-forever-18644/

  97. You get excited and don’t pay attention. I don’t suggest that people couldn’t be framed by planting an illegitimately obtained passport but I do suggest that you should be less credulous about the planted passport and setting up patsies story. If you want others to believe what you have become so certain of it needs more than handwaving and claims to superior intuition. You need to at least try and spell out what happened from evidence you can put together. Unfortunately for your credibility you are vague about the important question whether the Syrian passport was the suspect’s own document and don’t even seem to notice that your reference to the passport possibly being fake is ambiguous. It coul matter whether the passport was a fake used by the suspect or simply a fake got up by the forces of evil that made him the patsy.

  98. And a further point that might be a distinct possibility, which Mr. Revusky did not consider, is that the perpetrators of these massacres could very conceivably carry their passports, in order to avail the small chance of making good their escapes back to homeland were such a chance to present itself. Other than of course, the post-mortem “immortal name”, associated with the much greater likelihood of glorious death!

    • Replies: ,
  99. Oh you are the young enthusiast aren’t you. Anyone beyond the age of naive excitability wouldn’t quote such a garbled version of LBJ’s famous jibe at Gerald Ford that he couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time.

    And in case that sounds gratuitously patronising let me link it to to your fallacious criticism of “vinteuil” who was quite obviously not taking your shoe laces reference literally but merely echoing your figure of speech. That criticism goes not to your youthful naiveté but to your verbal intelligence.

    • Replies:
  100. making good their escapes back to homeland

    if a passport could survive it, I guess a well-trained and in-shape terrorist could as well..

    http://writingcreativenonfiction.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/9_11-photo-explosing-and-buildings.jpg

    But he would have made greater efforts to secure his passport to his person. He would be needing it after all!

  101. Would you care to resort to better argument by referring to the actual evidence of what came down from the buildings, from which floors and in what condition they were?

    And as you must want to convince people and may even have made a systematic study of available evidence I wonder if you would be so good as to give references/links to the discussion of the significance of the passport? You aren’t about to tell me that you haven’t put this remarkable piece of physical evidence into its context as part of the case that you contest are you?

    Unfortunately I have had experience already on these blogs of truthers being proved to have ignored the available evidence; typically asserting that the official inquiry didn’y deal with a subject only for someone who knows the material to prove that to be total BS. So don’t try to tell me there wasn’t detailed consideration of the implications of the passport. Was its genuineness examined? Do you know?

  102. So you are a truther are you? Given the primacy of your support for Russia or some pro-Russian view, and don’t appear to be a troll, I am surprised that you would diminish your credibility by seeming to side with people widely regarded as nutters.

    • Replies:
  103. Have you NO regard for your credibility! Are we really to take you as saying Bashir Assad’s description of Putin as the only real defender of Christianity publucised on a propaganda site is some evidence of something Americans or anyone should pay attention to?

    • Replies:
  104. Thank you for expanding on the many possibilities.

    You have also prompted the thought that, though the development of a BS detector after youthful naiveté should be encouraged, IQ is actually very important insofar as it connotes the ability to keep a lot of thoughts in play in and about the short term memory at the same time. Stupid people find complexity more tiring than smart people who can handle it, though it is of course a matter of temperament as well as cognitive capacity.

  105. “You think the U.S. is the only country in the world where you can learn to fly an airplane? ”

    Actually, the U.S. is the easiest place in the world to learn to fly an airplane. We have very low regulatory overhead for this, and of course, anti-discrimination policies against people from bronze-age hell holes.

    I agree with some of this; a lot of what is presented as news is mighty fishy. However, the problem with keeping an open mind about what is presented as news is if your mind is too open, you start saying really dumb stuff like “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” based on internet research rather than actual knowledge (jet fuel doesn’t have to melt steel beams; steel’s structural strength changes radically at jet fuel temperatures, turning into wet noodles, which is why Blacksmithing used to be a thing).

    The Ludek Pachman story is a good one, but there is a better rule which probably more accurately reflects the reality of things from the American physics community. It’s called the “Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect” popularized by Michael Chrichton:

    “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
    In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
    That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.”

    • Replies: , ,
  106. No sarcasm: merely the observation that the figures you were multiplying were resulting in a very small product in your “equation”.

    Be so good as to enlighten those for whom you have written so much, or perhaps, to be blunt, on whom you have inflicted your “randon thoughts”, how your “equation” is to be understood mathematically and practically. What is the significance of the product .03? If it is not to be related to 1 as the 100 per cent product then what does it mean?

    I don’t suppose I should criticise your description “random remarks” as meaning you were too lazy, and too discourteous towards your readers to take the trouble to organise and order your thoughts. I take it that you were offering an entirely appropriate apology for the woolliness of your thinking as exemplified – pending your clarification – by your “equation”.

  107. Interesting thought that he might have been dead for a long time so one turns first to the simplest problems with the idea. I proffer the need to have Obama as a tool of some tight cabal of plotters who might for some reason have wanted to maintain the fiction that ObL was alive and then that he had been found in Pakistan and killed. Obviously Obama’s natural course if he found that the death of Obama had occurred under Bush and been concealed would be to sack a few people and blame Bush and Republicans. The idea that he might risk approving some confected affair with Navy seals as an elaborate pretense has too many difficulties.

  108. Apparently they do put out other, feelgood, videos as someone else has pointed out.

  109. You’ve got quite a few leaps in logic in this piece, but the first one to really jump out at me (haha) is your assumption that my (or our) definition of comic-book villainy is the same as everyone else’s. Or a Muslim’s. Or a radical’s.

    First of all, capital punishment is normal. Beheading someone is little different from hanging, firing squad, or electrocution in this regard.

    Second, does the Saudi gov’t still chop off people’s hands as a punishment for thievery? What would adding a camera to the mix really tell us?

    Third, Islamic insurgents have been disseminating execution videos since forever.

    None of which is to say that the videos aren’t fake, mind you. I’ve never watched one, and I’m agnostic on the subject.

    I would, however, find Islamic State’s position on the matter to be instructive. Curious that you ignore this most important facet of the conversation: does Islamic State even deny the authenticity of the videos?

    I infer that anyway, because if their audience actually believed that the beheading videos were real, the skit would be outrageously tasteless.

    Yeah, who ever heard of a thing as crazy as a tasteless Jewish comedian?

    TL;DR-ed the rest. Maybe in another comment.

  110. Leftists would seem to have something in common with Conspiracy Theorists: it’s possible to have a mind so open, your brains fall out. Not saying your positions (insofar as I read) are wrong, but, your arguments don’t inspire confidence.

    • Replies:
  111. Do Muslims still castrate their black slaves, or is that no longer the fashion? I know they still take pedophilia as Holy Writ, so I won’t bother to ask about that one.

    Mr. Revusky also believes that the Charlie Hebdo massacre was faked:

    “When I first saw the news about Charlie Hebdo, I concluded very quickly that it was some sort of staged event, a ‘false flag’.”

    Offered reason? because the stuff the killers shouted didn’t live up to his literary standards:

    “Once I saw the cheesy Hollywood B film dialogue — “Allahu Akhabar! The Prophet is avenged!” — that nailed it for me. I said sarcastically to whoever would listen: “What is it with that B film dialogue? Were the guys who staged this on a tight budget? Couldn’t they hire better scriptwriters?”

    Again, I can’t help wondering, what would he expect? Selections from the The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám?

    What a maroon.

    This.

    Speaking of maroons.

    How moronic was it for the alleged Perps in the Hebdo shooting to leave their ID in the getaway car, after having gotten away…just about free and clear ?

    Lord knows we all carry our IDs on us when we blow away innocent people and want to get away with it…don’t we Mr Vinteuil ?

    Perhaps the utter stupidity of carrying out such an attack is only followed by the utter stupidity of leaving your identification behind….. so we know its you.

    Or perhaps we are all just even more pathetically stupid then they, to accept one more cowardly act of Terror Fraud……. heaped in our faces, yet again ?

    Nobody ever accused Arabs of being particularly bright. Dindus are always stepping on their meat while committing crimes.

    you guys always think you are right. that is why nobody listens when you talk about these things. no matter what, you see yourself as the enlightened “truth seekers” and the other person is just a sheep. this is no way to debate something and DEFINITELY not a way to get more people on your side (that should be the goal after all… right?)

    The goal for many is to be part of a small, pure, elite minority. A subculture. Being perpetually relegated to the fringes is a feature for these types, not a bug. I’ve seen a lot of this from “hardcore” White Nationalists (mostly of the skinhead variety). If the subculture went mainstream they’d leave it and find some other cause to feed their need. Basically, they like to play dress-up and be antisocial.

    Actually, you’d be amazed at the amount of highly-intact debris found at the sites of major crashes and explosions.

    I’d be amazed if there wasn’t a shitton of intact and mostly-intact debris. Fireballs are highly overrated.

    It’s true that Saudi Arabia (a staunch U.S. ally) like the U.S. itself, has the death penalty, and (unlike the U.S.) carries out capital punishment by beheading. But that has basically nothing to do with whether the Jihadi John and Jihadi Joseph videos are fake, which they are.

    Well, there goes your argument, torpedoed by you. How it’s ipso facto crazy that Islamic State would be proud of beheading people when Saudi Arabia is proud of beheading people is anyone’s guess.

    Actually, I believe it has been established that the Syrian passport found at the recent Paris event was fake.

    Jihadis are entering Europe using fake passports? Say it ain’t so.

  112. Leftists would seem to have something in common with Conspiracy Theorists: it’s possible to have a mind so open, your brains fall out.

    ideological leftists are just as closed minded as ideological right-wingers, perhaps even more so.

    I don’t think JR is being overtly leftist by pointing out the obvious fact that many of the CIA videos of ‘terrorists’, (like “Osama”) for instance are faked. And I’m sure we all agree that many of them are real. I’m pretty sure the video of the Jordanian pilot being burned alive was real. And it certainly didn’t endear the world to the cause of ISIS. But that’s not the point. The point is that 911 did not happened the way our government and media says it did. They’re lying. And elements inside our government were complicit with that singularly heinous crime. Dick Cheney, Dov Zakheim, Philip Zelikow, and certainly men like Larry Silverstein.

    We’ve murdered and maimed and displaced millions of innocent people because of that event, not to mention the thousands upon thousands of American lives ended or ruined. And it was all based on lies.

    So if his arguments don’t inspire confidence in you, what arguments do, pray tell? The official version? That’s laughable.

    It is right and proper for JR to point out that this false flag crime has been used to murder and maim millions and destroy country after country. And all of it is a treacherous lie. We should be spending our energy on investigating and prosecuting the real criminals who perpetrated 911, not destroying the Muslim countries of the Middle East so Israel can steal more land.

    But hey guess what? There are many ideological Zionists who are all for the agenda of using the US military to destroy Israeli’s enemies; perceived and otherwise. And they have a motivation to obfuscate what really happened on that day so that the American people don’t catch on to the ruse, and start looking at who really is responsible, because then things just might get dodgy.

    Dr. Alan Sabrosky – former Director of Studies at the U.S. Army War College.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3ho-Th3yNo

  113. How would anyone know the towers coming down was faked without knowing what a very similar real plane crash fire/collapse looked like ? Certainly it is possible to say it is impossible in principle that the planes/fire/aluminium detonations brought the buildings down .

    However, it certainly is possible to massacre lots of people with an Kalashnikov, or cut a man’s head off with a sharp blade. Unless you admit having seen a real beheading video, how can you tell others are fake? Money can be counterfeit only because genuine currency exists. This post is like saying “life is a illusion”; if there is no real reality at all, then calling (what we take to be) actually happening an “illusion”” is without meaning.

    [MORE]

    He’s dreaming now,” said Tweedledee: “and what do you think he’s dreaming about?”
    Alice said “Nobody can guess that.”
    “Why, about you!” Tweedledee exclaimed, clapping his hands triumphantly. “And if he left off dreaming about you, where do you suppose you’d be?”
    “Where I am now, of course,” said Alice.
    “Not you!” Tweedledee retorted contemptuously. “You’d be nowhere. Why, you’re only a sort of thing in his dream!”
    “If that there King was to wake,” added Tweedledum, “you’d go out — bang! — just like a candle!”
    “I shouldn’t!” Alice exclaimed indignantly. “Besides, if I’m only a sort of thing in his dream, what are you, I should like to know?”
    “Ditto” said Tweedledum.
    “Ditto, ditto!” cried Tweedledee.
    He shouted this so loud that Alice couldn’t help saying, “Hush! You’ll be waking him, I’m afraid, if you make so much noise.”
    “Well, it’s no use your talking about waking him,” said Tweedledum, “when you’re only one of the things in his dream. You know very well you’re not real.”
    “I am real!” said Alice and began to cry.
    “You won’t make yourself a bit realler by crying,” Tweedledee remarked: “there’s nothing to cry about.”
    “If I wasn’t real,” Alice said — half-laughing through her tears, it all seemed so ridiculous — “I shouldn’t be able to cry.”
    “I hope you don’t suppose those are real tears?” Tweedledum interrupted in a tone of great contempt.
    “I know they’re talking nonsense,” Alice thought to herself: “and it’s foolish to cry about it.” So she brushed away her tears, and went on as cheerfully as she could.

    Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There. (1871))

    • Replies:
  114. says:
    • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    A few years ago I was fired from my Tidal Power Technology company and after a sabbatical started a modern day alchemy gold making project (yes we make gold and the big bang is now the big bust). At one point I had 3 kg of 1150 deg C molten metal explode into my upper body and face.

    In recuperation I reflected on what the hell I did wrong and took a hard look into the mirror and asked the question. What is my relationship with reality? The answer was difficult but obvious. I did not have a functioning relationship with reality. (and neither does 99% of the rest of the world)

    When the quark was smashed in the particle colliders, all that was found was empty vibrating space (encoded energy and the Matrix Movie was 100% accurate).

    Bottom line, the 13 year old with the 3 DVD box set video of the Matrix has a better education that our Harvard MIT PhD’s and a better functioning relationship with reality.

  115. ” I wonder how many people commenting on this excellent article are sincere believers of the 911 Commission Report vs. the shills trying to do damage control.” – Mostly shills. 9/11 belongs to the too evil to expose category. The truth about 9/11 is the existential threat to the state of Israel. Notice the shills under this article are the same who do hasbara whenever Israel and Jewish issues come up elsewhere.

  116. You’re being ridiculous or trolling, and I’m not going to provide links to LiveLeak. Look them up yourself.I have a feeling you won’t. The ISIS beheading videos may very well be faked and I’m quite sure ISIS or elements of the Islamic State are being funded and trained by various intelligence agencies. That doesn’t mean jihadis don’t behead captives. Many videos of Christians being beheaded.
    It’s not an either/or proposition. Even various American intelligence agencies are at cross purposes. That doesn’t mean Muslim terrorism doesn’t exist.
    Do you think the Siege of Vienna was a false flag ? Was the Ottoman Empire a huge PsyOps maneuver ? Yes that’s a strawman, but at what point do you believe all Muslim terrorism came under western control or direction ?
    I know there are serious problems with the standard 9/11 script. I live in NYC and lived there during the whole fiasco and know firefighters that spent weeks at ground zero and even they have serious doubts and reservations about the storyline, although many don’t want to discuss it at length. But that doesn’t mean Saudi hijackers didn’t get on airplanes under the firm belief that they were attacking the U.S.
    It’s a complex subject with disturbing overtones, but don’t throw discretion out the window in a quest for the truth.

  117. ideological leftists are just as closed minded as ideological right-wingers, perhaps even more so.

    You’re preaching to the choir. It was a rhetorical point (surely you’ve heard the “liberals’ minds are so open their brains fall out” thing before).

  118. Fail.

    Remote controlled planes are subject to the same laws of physics and aerodynamics as real ones. A 767 cannot fly at stated speeds at low altitude.

    Also, F=ma. If you step through any video of jet images impacting Towers you will find that the plane flies through its own length as it enters the shot (in air) in 11 frames. If you again count frames when the jet image contacts 6 floors of high grade steel structure, you will again find it takes 11 frames to fly through the steel and concrete. There is no significant deceleration. Therefore F=m(0)=0. There is no force available to do the work of breaking the steel structure. Cartoon Physics, WOP scenario.

    • Replies: ,
  119. Gell-Mann Amnesia and Ludek Pachman story describe two opposite effects. Gell-Mann despite of first hand evidence that newspapers’ science stories cannot be trusted continues to believe NYT coverage of, say, Palestine and Israel while Mr. Pachman acknowledges superior insight of his cleaning woman and modifies his own approach to parsing the reality. Furthermore Mr. Pachman wonders why he or people of his social strata are more gullible with respect to some stories in some situations.

  120. Indeed, the ‘holocau$t’ storyline is quite the ‘story’, an impossible story at that. Hence it’s falling apart faster than a cheap suit.
    Your appeal to the authority via the “father of modern history” has turned against you. von Ranke would have not accepted a storyline that was utterly impossible.

    I believe that he would have. There’s simply more in the way of historical evidence in support of my version than yours.

    Let’s assume for the moment that your allegation is true, i.e., that there are no mass graves. (I of course disagree, but you started this thread, which is about “Holocaust certainty,” so I’m not going to belabor that point here.) We would have to rely on the eyewitnesses and on the documentary record.

    Regarding both the eyewitnesses and the documents, the predominance of the evidence is with my story, not yours. You can point to a document or two referring to camps in Poland as “transit camps” and a tiny minority of deportees to these camps who did in fact travel through the camps.

    I can point to dozens of eyewitnesses calling these camps extermination camps, including those very people that you point to as proof of transit, not to mention a dozen perpetrators, none of whom demonstrated any evidence of being coerced.

    Your impossible storyline says Jews “were murdered in many places over the course of several years …”.
    The problem is that you cannot prove/demonstrate that they were murdered. As I said previously in this thread, and you ignored;
    “[b]The Purported Believers have already told us that they [alleged Jews and alleged others] ‘went’ to enormous mass graves which they claim to know the exact locations of, but cannot show us a single excavated, verified enormous mass grave as alleged. Not one.[/b]”

    Your story holds no water.

    So the question to ask ourselves, given the topic and the current subtopic of Ranke, is how he would have addressed the issue of the missing bodies (bearing in mind my caveat above, i.e., that I disagree).

    Absent the emergence of at least one percent of the missing people with some degree of certainty — which your side cannot do — the logical conclusion is not that, therefore, they did not die. Rather, the logical conclusion is that something was done with the bodies.

    And wouldn’t you know it? That’s precisely what my side says.

    [MORE]

    The Revisionist position is elegantly simple. [b]You can’t have murders of ’11,000,000′ people without enormous and verified, and I do mean enormous, physical evidence to show.[/b]
    You cannot have alleged murder weapons, the alleged German ‘gas chambers’, which laughably defy laws of science, logic, & rational thought. Such conjured weapons could not have worked as is stated in your storyline. This forum is filled with threads on that very subject.

    The specifics of the Reinhardt camps fall under the above, simple as that.

    You have your scientists that say one thing, and I have my scientists that say another. I’m not a scientist. Neither are you. So the issue of science is one on which we must both claim ignorance.

    That said, there is one sure-fired way to prove once and forever that the means described would not have worked. Get yourself 1,000 volunteers and a big enough room and throw in some Zyklon-B. If you’re so 100% sure, be certain to include yourself.

    You are so scientifically sure, but until you do that, the preponderance of the evidence — again — is on my side, not yours.

    I mean hey, I haven’t seen nor heard from countless old friends, acquaintances, schoolmates, distant relatives etc. for decades.
    Using your logic they were all murdered.

    But certainly other people could come forward and identify that these people are alive, if they are. But your side can’t do that for one percent of the missing from Aktion Reinhard.

    Tell me, Thames Darwin, has there ever been a conviction of anyone since the post-war Show Trials for enormous mass murders in alleged centralized sites without the excavation, verification, & display of the claimed murder victims?

    I am legitimately not sure what you’re asking. First of all, do you mean Nuremberg only or all “show trials” since the war?

    There is tons of information about Jews being transited out of camps/sites and ‘where they went’, see:
    ‘J. Graf and the illogical canard: ‘Where did Jews go then?’ / & more’
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8272

    I ask for the proof of the whereabouts of 17,000 Jews — a mere one percent of the Jews subjected to Aktion Reinhard. Please note, I am being IMMENSELYcharitable by asking for such a small number.

    ‘WJC’s Stephen Wise said 1,250,000 – 1,500,000 Polish Jews homeless in Europe, outside of Poland, & alive after WWII’
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10191

    You have any proof that he knew how many Jews Poland had before the war?

    • Replies:
  121. For the received wisdom on the Charlie Hebdo & Paris incidents, the confirmed lefties who rule at Wikipedia have put it all together in about as coherent a narrative as one could reasonably expect, here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    and here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

    There are hundreds of footnotes/links. You could, quite literally, spend the rest of your life following up on all this stuff.

    Anyway, before would-be skeptics start fixating on this or that oddity or improbability, I strongly suggest that they read through these articles, complete, clicking on all the links they can stand, so as to get a clear idea of what they’re up against.

    Jonathan Revusky’s whole modus operandi, his bread & butter, is to get people unfamiliar with the received wisdom to focus on the odd footnote, here and there, while ignoring (1) the big picture, and (2) his utter failure to provide a remotely plausible alternative narrative.

    He strains at every gnat on the one side, while swallowing whole every camel on the other side.

    • Replies:
  122. Jonathan, I wouldn’t commit yourself to the idea that ISIS doesn’t do beheading. Not only are there numerous credible eye-witnesses, but they try and follow Shari’a as it was written in the Koran, which prescribes decapitation–not shooting, not hanging, not lethal injection–for a whole range of crimes.

    That being said, it’s obvious that the videos are fake. I knew there was something wrong right away, when I failed to actually see any beheading in what had been billed as ‘beheading video’. I remembered that in 2004, when they captured Nicholas Berg in Iraq, they had no qualms about showing the actual deed. So I was totally non-plussed with these Jihadi John videos. ‘WTF is this?’ I wondered. ‘A G-rated beheading video?’ Pointless.

    And thanks for a great article too, Jonathan.

  123. Have you NO regard for your credibility! Are we really to take you as saying [that something] publucised on a propaganda site is some evidence of something Americans or anyone should pay attention to?

    It’s worked for New York Times for 164 years +

    Wall Street Journal has been editorializing for about 70 years, including in its editorial opinions massive propaganda. Still, people pay attention to it.

    Washington Post was founded in 1877. Today it publishes the odious scribblings of the odious Jennifer Rubin, propagandist extraordinaire. Still, the paper thrives. sort of.

    The Chicago Tribune, founded in 1847, was staunchly opposed to New Deal and to US entry into WWII (good call, imo). It’s been bought, sold, reduced, revised and reimagined. But it still circulates just under half-a-million copies daily and about 850,000 on Sundays. More than Unz I think.

    Sheldon Adelson bought a newspaper and gives it away for the sole purpose of supporting the psychopath Benjamin Netanyahu. It’s all propaganda all the time. Credible?

    Unless I’ve mistaken the entire tenor of Revusky’s writing, the task of being an astute consumer and user of information obtained from even established, distinguished, long-lived, credible sources is to Ask Questions; examine the information critically; look for patterns; run it through the BS grinder.

    I really appreciate and commend JR for his interesting perspective on recognizing/reimagining BS, and especially for the Roger Rabbit model. But I have to say, my long-dead Mennonite great-grandfather used to make a geared little wooden toy that he slyly called (when his Irish wife was not in earshot) a Bullshit Grinder.

    Speaking of the Roger Rabbit model: Revusky’s RRA puts a name to a phenomenon that is manifest in a DVD that was part of my own Sunglasses moment: “Imaginary Witness: Hollywood and the Holocaust” explains how, starting 20+ years after the (alleged) event, the cartoons were drawn to match the holocaust narrative that was propagandized beginning at least 40 years before the event.

    Consider this paragraph, and crank it through the Chronology feature of the BSgrinder:

    [MORE]

    Hollywood did not only tell stories about the Holocaust, it actually helped to document the war. “Directors Frank Capra, John Huston, Billy Wilder, and George Stevens all worked for the Army Signal Corps’ motion picture unit. So important did the US government consider their work that after liberation, film crews went into concentration camps even before medical teams.[4] In the portion of the film describing the initial screenings of their footage back in the U.S., a portion narrated by film editor Stanley Frazen and screenwriter Melvin Wald, Wald says that “It was the most horrifying thing I’d ever seen, because the inmates walking in their black and white uniforms were like ghosts,” and Frazen admits that he had to leave the projection room to vomit.

    Notice that the same folks who produced anti-German propaganda (narratives and visuals – films) almost a decade before war became hot, came along after the war to film the dead and dying people that were magically discovered by Eisenhower’s forces on April 4, 1945. By that time, Stalin’s Red Army, having captured most of Poland, had been within 40 miles of Berlin for at least three months.

    Allied forces — of which Eisenhower was supreme commander — were in the Rhineland and had defeated the Germans by that time — early March, 1945. The distance between Remagen, on the Rhine, and Ohrdruf, the site of the grisly images that were grist for Eisenhower’s post-war propaganda films, is ~320 miles.

    Meanwhile, on March 1, 1945 Allied firebombers completed the work begun with the Thousand-bomber raid over Cologne; March 1 marked the “end of Cologne.”

    In March 1945 Dusseldorf “endured 243 air raids.” By March 11, 1945, 96% of Dusseldorf had been incinerated.

    “Five-year old Gerd Fammler and his mother and sister no longer left the shelter; they lived there. ‘It wasn’t nice to have to live in such dim light, especially for us kids. Whenever I smell damp, musty concrete in old buildings it brings memories of the Second World War to mind, of bombs, bunkers, flames, and pain.’ ” from The Fire, by Jorg Friedrich, p 219.

    On March 16, 1945 Wurzburg was “wiped off the face of the earth” by British carpet bombers under the command of Arthur Harris.

    “On April 5, 1945, Harris complained that ‘it was already extremely difficult to find suitable targets.’ (fn 152) In east central Germany, Chemnitz was bombed on March 5 by 720 British planes carrying 1,100 tons of bombs; one-third of the city area was burned down. Two days later, 84 percent of Dessau, the old royal residence, was destroyed; on March 12, Swinemunde experienced its ruin; on March 31, 1,100 tons of munitions shattered one-fifth of the houses in Halle. Zerbst, Frankfurt (Oder), Nordhausen, Potsdam, and Halberstadt went down in April.

    On April 7, the U. S. First Army had reached the Weser River, and together with the Ninth Army they continued marching on to the Harz Mountains. ** To scare the local population, Gauleiter Lauterbacher told them on April 7 that “all males between fourteen and sixty-five in the enslaved western regions of the Reich were brought together in assembly camps and are guarded by Negroes and Jews. Our women were abducted and taken to Negro brothels.” (fn 153) If that were true, it would still be a preferable fate to what the British No. 5 Mass Destruction Group did in Nordhausen — six thousand dead, including 1,500 concentration camp prisoners– and what the U. S. Eighth Air Force did in Halberstadt.”

    ** As William Shirer noted in the opening pages of Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, the Allies recovered a vast amount of German documents, much of the cache from the Harz Mountains.

    Due to agreements FDR had made with Stalin, and because Ike did not want to put US forces in harm’s way, the Red Army wilded in Berlin and in Germany, raping 2 million German civilian girls and women.

    How long does it take to reduce a human being from, say, 150 pounds to 80 pounds if he/she has no food at all?

    On DECEMBER 13, 2010, in a talk titled General Eisenhower and the Documentation of the Holocaust, part of the seven-month series “Eisenhower and the Righteous Cause: The Liberation of Europe,”

    Rabbi Harry Reicher talked about an episode which occurred in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust. While liberating concentration camps and witnessing sights that “beggar description,” General Eisenhower ensured the horrific scenes were captured for posterity in graphic photographs and film. Rabbi Reicher asserted that he grasped the impact which visual evidence was to have in the Nuremberg Trials, and foresaw the era of Holocaust denial. Video clips of concentration camps were shown.** Professor Reicher also responded to questions from members of the audience. . . . Portions of this program may be disturbing to some viewers.

    ** Several observations about the film clips that Rabbi Reicher references place that entire event in the Roger Rabbit category.

    First is the timeline noted above. Eisenhower was certainly aware of the devastating bombing raids being carried out against Germany’s civilian and industrial infrastructure; he should have been aware of the starvation conditions that would ensue and that prevailed at Ohrdruf. Eisenhower was in a position to alleviate those deaths. He chose not to.

    Most damning is the display of shrunken heads and lampshades supposedly made of Jewish skin.

    In “ The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau, Jr. author Peter Moreira records that

    “a turning point in Morgenthau’s relationship with the [Jewish] community came in November 1942, when Rabbi Stephen Wise came to [Morgenthau's] office in the U. S. Department of the Treasury to tell [him] what was happening in Europe. Morgenthau knew of the millions of deaths and the lampshades made from victims’ skin, and he asked Wise not to go into excessive details. But Wise went on to tell of the barbarity of the Nazis, how they were making soap out of Jewish flesh. Morgenthau, turning pales, implored him, “Please, Stephen, don’t give me the gory details.” Wise went on with his list of horrors . . .[ Morgenthau's secretary] was afraid her boss would keel over. (fn7) Morgenthau later said the meeting changed his life.”

    In 2010

    Both the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., and the Yad Vashem museum in Jerusalem, declined to take possession of [a] lampshade [allegedly from Buchenwald and allegedly made of human skin], saying that the concentration camp lampshades made of human skin were probably a “myth”.

    Rabbi Stephen Wise lied to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., a lie that had deadly consequences. At Morgenthau’s instigation, brutal measures were put into place against the German people after the war, such that more Germans, civilians as well as ‘disarmed enemy forces” died after Germany’s surrender than during the war.

    As round waffle noted in #109,

    “In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.”

    If the U.S. Army Signal Corps together with the Hollywood propagandists who “arrived at Ohrduf before the Red Cross” under Eisenhower’s direct command, went so far as to manufacture evidence in the form of shrunken heads and lampshades made of ‘Jewish’ flesh, why should anything they said be believed, particularly when the propaganda narrative had been used at least three years earlier to incite and incentivize an otherwise already zealous zionist with an admitted animus toward Germans.

    The scenario that Reicher explains and praises, that the Roger Rabbit film that Eisenhower had prepared was used at Nuremberg to powerful effect, is actually yet one more indictment of the offense against justice that the Nuremberg trials represent.

  124. Thanks for the props, WoO.

    But I very much doubt that Mr Revusky suffers even the least little bit from
    youthful naiveté.

  125. Mr Revusky challenges us to watch a beheading video, and judge for ourselves.

    OK, I’d suggest this one:

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=24c_1445470744

    All faked by the Mossad, no doubt.

    • Replies:
  126. Oh, and then there’s this delightful video, to reassure anybody who doubts that Muslim immigrants love us all and mean us all well:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3ONEMf72Rw

    Another Mossad effort, of course – ’cause, obviously, a bunch of innocent goat-herders couldn’t possibly have brought off anything this polished.

    • Replies:
  127. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    How about HIQT, high IQ tool. More pc than idiot. But idiot is correct. Some people see the world in black and white. Some see in color.

  128. from the article:

    Now it does seem that there really are these thug/mercenary/gangster types controlling large parts of Syria and Iraq. It is also possible that they do execute people, maybe even a lot of people.

    he’s not saying it never happens, just that so many of the videos we see are faked

    so please, give your distraction a rest

    if you think Osama and his henchmen did 911 and you have better proof than Dick Cheney said so, then please edify us. Otherwise you’re just looking petty and puerile – at best.

    • Replies: ,
  129. sorry, rurik, no deal.

    I’ve got a particular interest in the French cases, and don’t like seeing self-promoters like JR lying about them.

  130. Are you saying that the appearance of aircraft flying into the Twin Towers (and Pentagon presumably) was faked? How do you account for what people in the street saw?

    As to the force required to “break the steel structure” are you just amusing yourself by irritating trolling or do you really not know, as another commenter hss just explained wrt the heat generated by jet fuel, that the explanation you need to counter if you are a truther is that there was enough heat to weaken the steel frame because it lost its rigidity?

    • Replies:
  131. Anyone quoting the Rev Charles Dodgson always has a head start with me but it also makes you ripe for a quibble. As the sensible Alice might have observed would you really need to have seen a genuine beheading to know that one was fake which, say, purported to show Osama bin Laden sitting nearby with a 2016 copy of the Wall Street Journal in his hands…. But thanks for lining up to oppose nihilist nonsense. (Please someone quibble about my use of “nihilist” so I can fine tune its use for greater assurance that it is the mot juste).

    • Replies:
  132. I can relate to the HIQI phenomena. Know a few myself, and it never ceases to amaze me how any doubts and uncertainties that stray from the mainstream consensus are so intellectually out of bounds to them. So much so that logic and reason, which is their strong suit, is immediately discarded and replaced with uncompromising and irrational emotional outbursts. IMO, it’s not that an intellectual debate isn’t winnable, it’s that one is not possible given their heightened emotional state. It’s not that they are idiots, it’s that at moments like these they are in no condition to think. I can only assume that they are so emotionally invested in the system in which they have succeeded that any challenges to it are taken in as challenges to their very own sense of self worth. Your tenured college professor types are the worst for their success is entirely system dependent, and the escape from reality made possible by spending the vast majority of their life in the classroom is nearly impenetrable. Their only chance of opening their mind to other possibilities lies in the system turning against them. Until that day, you may as well just enjoy the fun you can have rattling the cage of these emotionally fragile potted plants. Trump potentially capturing the republican nomination is the horn of plenty that keeps on giving if you enjoy the occasional light hearted cage rattling as much as I do. Talk about a guy with a first class BS detector and the willingness and ability to communicate it…

    • Replies:
  133. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    This really ruins the whole idea of “red pilling” someone on anything because it’s usually a harsh truth about reality in a far right lens.

    I have never seen anyone use “the red pill” in some psuedo-pretend-to-be-edgy-except-not-actually-edgy-at-all-because-the-liberal-media-protects-and-breeds-my-narrative-they-just-don’t-admit-it” about 9/11 and only 9/11. Even though there are truther movements everywhere that no one has ever touched and obstructed. Don’t you think they would’ve done something a little less…complex? Like just a bomb? There were simply to many individuals that would’ve known that would’ve leaked key things by now especially because everyone HATED George w. bush. and if anyone noticed, a social justice warrior by the name of Edward Snowden – a traitor worthy of execution came out and risked his life to fight “the evil fascist government”. Why didn’t anyone come out for this event?

    This is really absolute hogwash because a mainstream liberal belief of our time is 100% that bush went in for oil and many of these voters DO suspect that, you can poll college kids to find this out. The funny part is I thought this would be good and it’s typical lefty nonsense speaking about something that they think is edgy but actually BENEFITS the very individuals in power. Anyone with a brain knows the far left has been winning nonstop in the USA – why wouldn’t they be writing laws/talking about how 9/11 was a horrible loss/Islam shouldn’t be here/no more mosques/ no more Islamic immigration? Wait. They want the opposite. They want you to think we did it to ourselves. It benefits them for you to distrust authoritarian viewpoints on immigration and interventionalist politics in the Middle East.

    Did Israel do it? Who knows. I doubt it personally.

    There are conspiracies theories for every story but most of them don’t hold up to common sense. We went in for oil? Oh really? How much did we get? None? Oh right. There’s that damn reality at it again.

    Look into what happens when molten aluminum + water/moisture combine and your explanation for the quick collapse is silly.

  134. And a further point that might be a distinct possibility, which Mr. Revusky did not consider, is that the perpetrators of these massacres could very conceivably carry their passports, in order to avail the small chance of making good their escapes back to homeland were such a chance to present itself.

    In the case of the alleged hijacker whose passport was found at ground zero, he had to have his passport with him because otherwise he could not board the plane. The problem with the narrative is how the passport survived the plane crash and fireball and arrived intact on the ground not long afterwards.

    In the case of the Kouachi brothers who allegedly left their ID’s in the getaway car, there was no similar need for them to have their ID on them. They were already on the ground in Paris. As for escaping back to their homeland, they were in their homeland. They were both French citizens, born in Paris.

    In the case of the latest thing in Paris, last November, I think it was a forged Syrian passport. So there is no certainty that the identity on the passport is real or belonged to anybody who was there.

    Anyway, one odd thing is that self-styled debunkers always throw around this “Occam’s razor’ concept, that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is likely the true one. (Except for when they don’t like the simple, obvious explanation.)

    The simplest, Occam’s Razor explanation of the ID’s always being found on the scene is that they were planted in each case. Other explanations require a separate explanation for each case — how the passport survived the fireball, why the brothers left their ID in the case, and so on… When you have a simple explanation that explains all cases, that’s Occam’s razor in action, isn’t it?

    • Replies:
  135. For the received wisdom on the Charlie Hebdo & Paris incidents, the confirmed lefties who rule at Wikipedia have put it all together in about as coherent a narrative as one could reasonably expect, here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    and here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_a

    All that Wikipedia does with these Deep Events, whether it is the JFK assassination or 9/11 or any of them is that the wikipedia page is a synopsis of the official tall tale.

    So when you are pointing to the wikipedia page on any of these events as proof of the official story, you are pointing to a summary of the official story as proof of the official story.

    The official story — independently of whether it is true or not (though it never is…) — cannot serve as proof of the official story. The technical term for this is the “beg the question fallacy”. Actually, here is the Wikipedia page on that!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

    On all these deep events, the false flag terrorism psy-ops, there is a community of independent researchers that have proven every which way to Sunday that the official story is false.

    Now, as for this later statement of yours:

    I’ve got a particular interest in the French cases, and don’t like seeing self-promoters like JR lying about them.

    Okay, so you are French and believe that the government and media and everybody else cannot possibly be lying to you about this. You are not emotionally capable of grasping this. Therefore I must be the one lying.

    Well, okay, that says more about you than about me. All the non-HIQIs here no perfectly well that the entire elite of your great or once-great nation is lying and I am telling the truth.

    But, okay, it’s one or the other. The authorities, the entire French elite are lying to you or I am. So you figure I am. In a way that even makes sense….

    I would just leave you with this little intellectal exercise:

    (a) Outline all of the reasons that the French State (and media and so on) have to lie about these incidents in Paris.

    (b) Outline all the reasons that I have to lie to you about them.

    • Replies:
  136. Mr Revusky challenges us to watch a beheading video, and judge for ourselves.

    OK, I’d suggest this one:

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=24c_1445470744

    (sigh)

    Did you watch that? It’s just as fake as the one I linked in the article!

    Not just my opinion. There are 217 comments under the video and everybody is pointing out how fake it is!

    All faked by the Mossad, no doubt.

    Most likely, yes. The psy-ops to demonize Muslims are pretty much all Zionist operations, yes.

    • Replies:
  137. Yes, they were faked. Badly. People who see impossible things are either lying or deluded. I saw Superman fly on TV, but I don’t think that he can fly in real life.

    An aluminum plane cannot leave a cartoon cutout in a steel structure. If you knew anything about aerodynamics you would know that the B767-200 cannot exceed 250 KIAS below 10,000 feet altitude. The official Zelikow Myth stops right there. There is precedent for this in the disintegration of the 767 flight, Egypt Air 990, which broke apart due to overspeed at 22,000 feet.

    The planes were pre-recorded and composited into the videos. This is easily proved by stabilizing the footage, which makes the jet’s separate camera motion readily apparent.

    I’m not a truther, they are all co-opted or duped by their so called leaders. I am an engineer.
    As I have already disproved the whole 9/11 story, I have no need to quantify the heat needed to
    weaken a structure made of 100,000 tons of high grade steel – (which would act as a giant heat sink) and never get hot enough to be weakened by paltry office fires in 50 minutes.

  138. Actually, the U.S. is the easiest place in the world to learn to fly an airplane.

    Maybe you need to think about this a little more. I have no idea whether the above assertion is correct in general, but in the specific case of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, it most certainly is not.

    In fact, the alleged hijackers at the flight school brought a lot of attention to themselves because they were such incredibly bad students. Now, let’s think, why were they such bad students?

    I think the main reason is that most of them did not really know English. I believe it was Hani Hanjour who went up with a flight instructor and after they got back on the ground, the flight instructor said “Never again”. It was terrifying. Probably because Hani Hanjour didn’t understand anything the flight instructor was saying.

    I believe Hani Hanjour (or another one of these guys) was in the U.S. well over a year before 9/11. He was taking an intensive English language course.

    So at least one of these guys supposedly went to America, enrolled in an intensive English language course (because he didn’t really know English) in order to later study how to fly the plane in Florida.

    Suppose you were somehow convinced to carry out a suicide operation in Russia but you needed to learn how to fly a plane. Consider this story. You go to Russia over a year before the operation. You do an intensive course of study in the Russian language so as to be able to study how to fly the plane in a flight school in which the language of instruction is Russian.

    Is this a plausible story? Or would you stay in your own country, study how to fly the plane in your own language and then go to Russia to carry out the operation at the last possible moment?

    Maybe I pulled punches on this in the article even. I outlined this scenario and even proposed it as a basic BDQ test question even leaving out some levels of detail as to why the story is so utterly absurd.

    There is no way any real suicide hijacking operation would work the way this one allegedly did. It’s all superfluous anyway. It’s just another degree of the WOP narrative. Even if a plane hitting a steel framed building could cause fires hot enough to make steel columns fail AND even if all the steel columns failed simultaneously producing a vertical, symmetrical collapse THEN…. the story is still absurd because no suicide hijacking operation would ever work the way this one is alleged to work!

    Nobody would go to the target country over a year before the operation, study the language of the target country so as to be able to enroll in a flight academy where the language of instruction was that newly learnt language so as to be able to fly the plane into the building.

    The thing is, though, that once you realize that the story is simply not true, for one of the basic reasons that the story can’t be true, then all the other reasons the story can’t be true start dawning on you. And then you become amazed that you could ever have believed the story! At least that is my case with this. But I doubt I am alone.

    • Replies:
  139. Not totally implausible speculations perhaps but it is easy enough to see why they preferred Osama dead. After all he would be mo more likely to provide information the US government wanted than say Saddam Hussein even if they were to take the risk of torturing him. And they would hardly want him given a platform in court. Imagine what would happen every day between his being sentenced to death and the actual execution. Imagine what would have happened if he was locked up for life in a known location.

  140. Also – perhaps just a trivial fortune teller’s just so story – but wouldn’t it seem like a good piece of theatre and negative PR for ISIS to get hold of material that would allow their prisoners to be dressed like American orange suited perps? The right inference might be that they are quite smart and imaginative in their use of media. After all the asymmetric military tactics of Taliban et al have been too smart for most American generals. (I’ve just seen a v. doco of Australia in Afghanistan and right at the outset the Americans and Australians in what was described as the biggest battle of the war got themselves caught in a 3000 metre altitude valley ambushed by a much bigger force than they knew about which was ready for them thanks to the Afghan forces who were meant to be doing the heavy lifting but in fact leaked the plans and never pressed their attack at all).

  141. You remind me of my reading Time Magazine in my early 20s when I concluded that on any subject I knew quite a lot about it made quite serious mistakes. I can’t now say that it reliably made me doubt everything written in it but I can pretty confidently say that it reinforced my general all round scepticism about media, expert witnesses and any source of important knowledge that some people relied on fervently or just adamantly. Go on picking nits and the question of what is the precise truth may have passed you by….

  142. There is no better analysis of how the mainstream media (dys)functions at the level of social institution than Herman and Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent”. It is in fact true that by the standards of the social sciences their “Propaganda Model” is proven beyond any reasonable doubt, certainly far more so than any competing model such as “the free press” or something like that, which are in fact simply asserted, no proof ever being offered. The most obvious untruth they explain is that media companies sell news to readers. Wrong. Generally speaking no media business can survive if the “cover price” was their only revenue. Advertising is what the business is about. They in fact sell not news to audiences but audiences to advertisers. Think about who the advertisers are (Governments, MIC, big pharma, etc) and it explains a lot about what they include and what they exclude. The MSM’s role in social control and mass conditioning is crucial, of course. Historically it has proven impossible to hold a population subservient by force for ever, you can never have enough force to make them do what you want indefinitely. If you can make that population THINK what you want, however . . .

    It really is essential reading for reality/conspiracy theorists as it illuminates the mechanism and some of the proximal motives – wealth, power, control. For more in the way of ultimate causes, that’s a lot harder. Personally, “The Controversy of Zion” (you can torrent a pdf) explained a lot that was previously impenetrable. But ultimately, if you follow the rabbit far enough, one can’t avoid the spiritual aspect of the position we are in. Which ties in quite well with mystical insight from whatever age or culture and quantum insights like Campbell’s “My Big TOE”.

  143. How on earth do you “know” what “people in the street” saw? You read it in the Commission’s report? Saw it on TV? Ha! There is evidence that very few individuals actually claim to have seen the impacts and try tracking one down now. Ripe for the “planting” of “testimony”.

    The videos can however be studied as evidence.

    You seem to have missed the point of the article you just read. One RRA invalidates the entire RR narrative. And with 911 there are numerous such. Tuneyloons doesn’t “need” to explain anything about “witnesses” when he is discussing the video evidence. You need to show why he has that wrong, if he has. As far as the Pentagon goes, I’d have to say that there is no actual evidence I’ve ever seen that a plane was involved. As for Manhattan the video evidence is hardly better than dubious in terms of the official conspiracy theory.

    You need to put up your own evidence, or at least a claim thereto, rather than reverting to the cheap rhetorical device you have used here in dismissing the comments about studying the videos. You even stooped to an ad hominem fallacy! Did you even read or understand this piece?

    • Replies:
  144. Pointless arguing with a HIQI, I’d say Rurik. You are in a fact-and-logic-free zone.

  145. That is a telling point Biff. I can’t recall seeing it before and I’ve always thought it surprising.

    After 14 years there has been no development in the official narrative. Nothing new has come to light, nothing uncovered by further research or investigation. No amendments or clarifications as would be expected in any complex matter over time.

    That fact alone is stunningly implausible.

    • Replies:
  146. So how do you explain people of lower IQ that are also good but not “easily duped and defrauded”? Also people of high IQ and that are good but also not easily duped? Does the word “illogical” mean anything to you?

    Because you seem to be saying that if one is good then one is easily duped. Or are you trying to say that to be “good” one must be able to be easily duped and defrauded?

    For myself I will stick with the particular flavor of idiocy described in the article as a more plausible explanation, as a working hypothesis at least, especially as the ability to be duped seems to persist beyond the presentation of contradictory facts. Or are you saying that highly intelligent people are so good they are immune to reason? In other words, they are so smart, they are dumb! Albeit because of their goodness. But that sounds like . . .

    • Replies: ,
  147. And the opposite of a “Truther” is of course, you: A Liar.

  148. I also appreciate the comparison to social dominance orientation by the 1st commenter. This broadens the great points the author has made with respect to the political dimension to every social institution. The small minority with the immense ambition for power and the work ethic to match their drive claw their way to the top of the hierarchy. I have met only one person in my life who falls in that category. The vast majority of high SDO scorers have much lower drive and work ethic, but seem to have very high desires for the leisure and comfort associated with their position in the hierarchy. Like a herd of cattle, they are easily moved and manipulated to defend the system that provides their leisure and comfort. No system has been more successful on the world stage than the American system. This supports Gore Vidal’s observation of “the United States of amnesia”, and the easily corrupted nature of politics in general. Many pearls of wisdom cover this unwillingness to remove the blinders — “Never bite the hand that feeds you” comes to mind. And so does “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” It’s not the few who sit at the top who are the problem, but the herd who sits below them in leisure and comfort. The Trump (and Sanders) phenomena is all about the growth of a portion of the herd who is no longer being fed, in the manner in which they were accustomed to, into a politically relevant force. For them, the system is broken and needs to be fixed.

  149. What I am suggesting, Camillus,

    Is that the parameters of own own moral conscience, do restrict our ability to see the deliberate evil behind events, when it strikes, not our intelligence.

    Consider your impression (as I consider mine) when the first airliner exploded into the twin tower on 9-11, could either of us ( or any of us) really imagine ourselves (or anyone)flying that plane, deliberately, into the building ?

    Could we ?

    Is it really a question of how intelligent we are…..that we can’t imagine it ?

    Isn’t the deliberate, and pre-planned nature of such an event, such as 9-11, what has so shocked us, and in fact, shocked the whole world ?

    We are shocked not because we are smart or stupid, we are shocked because it represents a breach in the fabric of our collective moral conscience.

    Our expectations of basic human decency, which binds us, is what is ruptured….not our(respective) levels of intelligence.

    Who , among us, could imagine such a thing ?

    Which curiously enough, Camillus, as I filter through all the events and narratives provided for us since that time, the one which seems most stubbornly, cloyingly resistant to debunking, no matter how many times, I try, in my mind, to rationally debunk it……

    Is the narrative of the five dancing Israelis.

    Who sets up a camera to record such a horrific and sinister attack………before the attack has occurred ?

    Who does a dance, a jig of celebration, after the planes have successfully struck their mark ?

    When the entire collective moral conscience of all humanity is beside itself in total shock and disbelief…what does it say about the celebratory nature of these few men, seemingly ecstatic in their recording of this heinous event ?

    What does it say, Camillus ?

    I am all ears ?

    • Replies:
  150. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    the event and narrative . . . which seems most stubbornly, cloyingly resistant to debunking, no matter how many times, I try, in my mind, to rationally debunk it……
    Is the narrative of the five dancing Israelis.
    Who sets up a camera to record such a horrific and sinister attack………before the attack has occurred ?
    Who does a dance, a jig of celebration, after the planes have successfully struck their mark ?
    When the entire collective moral conscience of all humanity is beside itself in total shock and disbelief…what does it say about the celebratory nature of these few men, seemingly ecstatic in their recording of this heinous event ?

    For many months, years even, I don’t think the “narrative of the five dancing Israelis” was widely known. In the sensory overload of events, of the image imprinted on our retinas of the smoking towers against a blue sky; of a man falling from the building; of the eerie skeleton of the towers after the smoke had cleared; of numbers tossed about — 50,000, 60,000 dead; of frantic phone calls to family who worked in the towers; of Rudy Giuliani emerging as the nation’s calming father-figure — the dancing Israelis got lost in that crowd.

    And for a long time I didn’t follow up on a lot of details.

    But one thing buried in the recesses of my brain nagged — what was that that someone said about “U.S. now must stand with Israel.”

    What did what happened in NYC have to do with Israel, I kept thinking.

    Eventually, I researched that nagging RRA: Who said it? Why?

    Ehud Barack said it.
    He said it even before the towers fell.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFEgBCrBb1Y

    THAT is when the entire construct of the world changed.
    That’s when the glasses went on.

    Ehud Barack: Architect of 9/11, by Christopher Bollyn

    • Replies:
  151. We all have strengths and weaknesses, from the macro to the micro-features, for example, mathematics or be conscientious.

    There is a myth that the higher are the scores in IQ, more rational, wiser, more accurate will be the individuals. is a myth because we’re all stupid and smart, it depends on the cognitive function, for what, for whom …

    There is a clear correlation between high IQ and wisdom but this is likely to be unusually non-linear.

    This mythology between linearity between IQ and fundamental-intelligent behavior (long term and holistic) is largely responsible for this blind faith in the cognitive ”elites”.

    It’s not, to be, or not to be,

    ”to be smart OR not”

    is, ” we are and we are not, ” it depends on which perspective you’re looking.

    ”you’re amazing on maths but sucks in realist logics”

    It also depends on the social dynamics in which you are located and how holistically conscious you are about reality.

    Until recently, the opposition was left. They were more aware of the problems of society while nowadays, contextual opposition is right. The ”eternal” opposition is wise.

    There are minds that are much more prodigious to understand the reality than others, just as there are minds that are best to learn many languages.

  152. Yeah…..Anonymous…….glasses on.

    I imagine there aren’t just a few out there….with glasses on….who aren’t locked and loaded too .

  153. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    In fact, the alleged hijackers at the flight school brought a lot of attention to themselves because they were such incredibly bad students. Now, let’s think, why were they such bad students?

    I think the main reason is that most of them did not really know English.

    Another point would be that learning to fly a 757-67 is a major undertaking. Those flight schools entailed small propeller planes, no relationship to jumbo-jets. Also, training requires reading comprehensive flight training manuals. Since their English was poor they would have needed manuals written in Arabic. So who provided the extensive training and Arab-language manuals? My guess would be that whoever flew the planes received prior training in Saudi Arabia since that’s where most of them were from.

  154. As the sensible Alice might have observed would you really need to have seen a genuine beheading to know that one was fake which, say, purported to show Osama bin Laden sitting nearby with a 2016 copy of the Wall Street Journal in his hands…

    I most certainly would. To be able to say with any confidence that such a film showed a faked death by beheading, one would have to have seen a genuine beheading.

    For example, what does a . 357 magnum at point blank range do to a human head. We all have ideas based on movie special effects. Take a look at the real thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVm88MX2Gw4&list=PLa8iRLQfB7ZeYKUtjYfMI0_Iu2skL9g5j&bpctr=1456339870
    A bit different that one might have thought, eh? You see the main thing warping our reality is not faked footage being passed off as real events, it is Hollywood product, which is presented as fiction.

    I an afraid mister Revusky left the matrix for Borges’s Circular Ruins, which ends thus:

    [...] In a birdless dawn the magician saw the concentric blaze close round the walls. For a moment, he thought of taking refuge in the river, but then he knew that death was coming to crown his old-age and absolve him of his labors. He walked into the shreds of flame. But they did not bite into his flesh, they caressed him and engulfed him without heat or combustion. With relief, with humiliation, with terror, he understood that he too was a mere appearance, dreamt by another.

    • Replies: ,
  155. Much of the 9/11 truth debate centres around whether the fires that were burning in the buildings could have melted or weakened the supporting steel frame of the buildings sufficiently to cause a structural failure.

    While I have no comment on the overall narrative of the WTC attack, I get very annoyed when I read about the “steel frame” construction of the WTC towers. It’s basically a straw man. Unlike, say, the Empire State Building, the WTC 1 and 2 towers were NOT steel frame construction. They were steel FASCES construction. They were vertical steel columns stabilized laterally by comparatively weak floors binding the columns together. Think of a bunch of one meter high sticks of raw spaghetti, punching through 100 sheets of paper one cm apart. Load the top of this with a ten pound weight. Now take a pair of scissors and carefully cut through two or three adjacent paper floors. The columns now have no lateral support and they bow outward and the structure collapses. The impact and heat took out the floors, not the steel “frame”, i.e. the columns. This was documented in the architectural building failure analysis. Here’s WTC2 starting to collapse right at the point of the mechanical insult: https://youtu.be/9SSS0DDqfm0

    • Replies: ,
  156. Anyway, one odd thing is that self-styled debunkers always throw around this “Occam’s razor’ concept, that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is likely the true one. (Except for when they don’t like the simple, obvious explanation.)

    Another point that needs to be made is that Occam’s razor was invented to explain natural phenomena, not human behavior. We may sometimes fail to figure nature out, yet that does not mean that nature consciously tries to deceive us. Human beings, of course, are another matter entirely. That’s why Occam’s razor is inadmissible in the study of ‘conspiracy theories’; it was simply never intended to handle them.

    • Replies: ,
  157. To be able to say with any confidence that such a film showed a faked death by beheading, one would have to have seen a genuine beheading.

    If you want blood, you got it!

    Nicholas Berg was beheaded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s group in Iraq in 2004. Look up Berg on Wikipedia if you’ve forgotten who that was. Here’s the video:

    http://www.annoy.com/sectionless/beheading.wmv

    Notice how they don’t pause the video before sawing off his head and cut directly to the post-decapitation scene, as in the ISIS videos. Notice also all the blood on the floor when they’re done. Carotid arterial bleeding makes a huge mess.

    I remember watching this for the first time about 11 years ago, and it made a big impression on me. That’s how I knew the ISIS videos were fishy when I first saw them.

    Even The Telegraph reported that video experts thought the executions were “staged”, though they were careful to add that they assumed the victim was later killed off camera.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/bill-gardner/11054488/Foley-murder-video-may-have-been-staged.html

    I guess we can take their word for it!

  158. Sticking strictly to the narcissism of minor difference (open invitation to all to upstage me by rendering that in the original German) I note that you wouldn’t need to have seen a real beheading to detect that my hypothetical video was fake because Osama would be shown as alive long after his death. Now if you are going to out quibble and out pedant me you can’t rest where you are but must come back with
    That could have been a genuine video got up to look fake by someone cooking up a fake 2016 copy of the WSJ… but how could the fake WSJ be shown with 2016 news…. well the whole fake fake might be done in 2016 but, setting that aside the actual content in the fake WSJ might be obscured in the video…

    Or…. I am running out of steam – maybe ObL was spliced into the video of a genuine beheading….

  159. A quick reading of this suggests that you have given a pretty good innocent explanation for any verion of the “five dancing Israelis” story. It would hardly be Ehud Barak only amongst Israelis who immediately saw the implications of a major terrorist attack in the US by Arabs or Iranians as they would naturally have assumed to be responsible (unless they were in on a dark conspiracy in whuch case yhey would have been strictly circumspect). About 75 per cent would have seen it straightaway.

    I proffer for enlightening comparison what my first boss told me about two occasions in 1941 when he was travelling or working with people of importance to Australia’s part in WW2. In June when the German attack on the Soviet Union began someone said “We’ve won the war!”. On 7 December after the news of Pearl Harbour broke someone said to him “We’ve won the war!”.

    Forget those dancing Israelis. Absolutely without evidentiary weight.

    • Replies: ,
  160. Excuse me not finding time to engage with what seems to me insane rubbish but let me briefly offer the fact that when I was in New York in April 2002 for two weeks for reasons totally unrelated to geo-politics I spoke to at least five sophisticated educated people who had been looking at the Twin Towers when one or both of the aircraft flew into them. I prefer their evidence to that of loony theorizers.

    • Replies: ,
  161. Think of a bunch of one meter high sticks of raw spaghetti,

    except in this case you can’t cut the “spaghetti” with scissors, you need thermite

    http://www.altacocker.com/other_items/thermite/thermite_wtc-core-beam-cut.jpg

    and even then it takes quite a bit to turn hundreds of thousands of tones of steel and concrete into so much powder and dust

    I guess it helps if you think of it all as paper and spaghetti .. or something

    • Replies:
  162. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Great analysis!

    I wonder if HIQI is the best moniker, though. I don’t object to its pejorative dimension. It just seems to be less helpful than it might be.

    Idiocy seems to be something that may be permanent, while what ails HIQIs can be outgrown or dispelled by the right kind of LPM(s) for an individual HIQI.

    I was surprised to learn that I’m colorblind. But, armed with that fact, I’m able to cope, like anyone else. Viewing things under bright white lights or direct sunshine seem to help.

    Perhaps “cartoon blindness” is more helpful. HIQIs simply can’t see cartoons as well as high BDQ folks. When viewed in that way, HIQIs may be helped, by someone so inclined, by shining a “bright light” on the subject. Perhaps each HIQI would respond to the right kind of stimulus from high BDQ friends who know them well. Might be able to lead them to their own LPM.

    Thereafter, with the knowledge of their condition, recovering HIQIs can cope by recognizing that they need brighter light than is sometimes available…

  163. “…but let me briefly offer the fact that when I was in New York in April 2002 for two weeks for reasons totally unrelated to geo-politics I spoke to at least five sophisticated educated people who had been looking at the Twin Towers when one or both of the aircraft flew into them. ”

    Let me try and guess the names of your five eyewitnesses: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers, Pearl and Silverstein?

  164. Your “raw spaghetti” analogy (it’s hard to call it a model) does not account for the central columns and their orderly collapse. Besides there was WTC7. No raw spaghetti in WTC7. No planes either.

    • Replies:
  165. “Forget those dancing Israelis. Absolutely without evidentiary weight.” – You are in a very deep denial.

    • Replies:
  166. I attribute my rather high BDQ to Hamilton’s conclusion stated below. I make a terrible dupe – the type of person that has been slaughtered by the true believers throughout history.

    http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/MentalismCB.html

    W. D. Hamilton (1936-2000, the originator of modern, ‘selfish gene’ Darwinism) described himself as ‘almost idiot savant’ (Hamilton, 2001:xxvii) and rated himself ‘fairly good at woodwork as at other handicrafts’ to the extent of having carpentry as a ‘reserve life plan’ in case his theory proved unpublishable (Hamilton, 1996:26). Hamilton also conformed to the typical family of someone with autistic tendencies suggested above: his father was a well-known engineer (designer of the Callender-Hamilton bridge), and a geriatrician sister had engineering skills to the extent that she developed an improved pressure mattress for the treatment of bed sores (Bliss, 2001). Hamilton describes himself as possessing -

    notably a trait approaching to autism about what most regard as the higher attributes of our species … a person who … believes he understands the human species in many ways better than anyone and yet who manifestly doesn’t understand in any practical way how the human world works – neither how he himself fits in and nor, it seems, the conventions.

    He continues,

    It is known now how autists, for all that they cannot do in the way of human relationships, detect better out of confusing minimal sketches on paper the true, physical 3-D objects an artist worked from, than do ordinary un-handicapped socialites … so may some kinds of autists, unaffected by all the propaganda they have failed to hear, see further into the true shapes that underlie social phenomena. (Hamilton, 2001:xxvii-xxxi)

  167. “when you are pointing to the wikipedia page on any of these events as proof of the official story, you are pointing to a summary of the official story as proof of the official story.”

    As usual, you make no attempt to understand before resorting to ridicule.

    I’m simply pointing out that before one starts questioning the “official story”, it’s best to know what it is.

    • Replies:
  168. I think the focus on the towers has hurt the search for the truth concerning 9/11. It was an emotionally traumatizing event. The relationships and motivations of the US and its allies before and since are justification enough to realize we have been had. I don’t know who knew about the attacks nor if there were other methods employed to bring down the towers. No one does because the evidence was shipped to China right after the attacks without analysis. I don’t understand the fixation with the towers. The evidence which can be tested is gone. What we do have is the 28 pages. We know the CIA wanted to take Osama out before 9/11 and saw pre-9/11 radicalization of Muslims by Israel’s actions as a threat. We know Osama was not formerly charged with anything. You’d have to be a complete moron to not realize that the War on Terror is a fig leaf for the Empire of Chaos to do its thing which is to destroy.

    One does not need to believe in the JFK conspiracy theory to know that there some really bad people out there with power they should not have. If JFK lived these people would still be there and they would still be bad. One does not need to have a highly emotional fixation on his death to be wary of what was going on at that time.

  169. John Kerry Enlists 12 Hollywood Execs as Mockingbirds in Order to Sell the “War on ISIS™”: Wag the Dog or Team America World Police?
    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/john-kerry-enlists-12-hollywood-execs-as-mockingbirds-in-order-to-sell-the-war-on-isis-wag-the-dog-or-team-america-world-police/

    “You don’t go to Hollywood to get “ideas” on how to fight “the narrative” of the fictional “ISIS™” that turns up in every country you want to bomb back into submission. Their “narrative” is too make fake beheading videos to make everyone hate them. Their “narrative” is to kill Muslims to make Muslims hate them. Their “narrative” is to say they rape women to make women hate them. Their “narrative” is to kill Japanese guys to make the Japanese hate them.”

    “Anyway, John Kerry didn’t go to Hollywood to get ideas on how to win the hearts and minds campaign against a hearts and minds campaign. He went there to get the Hollywood producers to produce more propaganda aimed at steering their audiences toward supporting the Never Ending Global War OF Terrorism Against Anyone Anywhere At Anytime if They Don’t Do What We Say i.e. ISIS™ .”

  170. OK, so it’s the Mossad, it’s Israel, it’s the Jews.

    Got it.

    • Replies: ,
  171. Actually the physical entity that is important here is the kinetic energy of the aircraft hitting the building which is 1/2 M(V*V) since I can’t make a V squared with my keypad. The weight of the plane is supposedly 100 tons, which isn’t the mass but can be calculated by the weight since weight is the force generated by the mass and gravity.

    The kinetic energy of that mass has the ability to shear and deform and weaken the metal superstructure. In addition that kinetic energy is also converted to heat energy as it compresses the various metals slamming into each other in the same way that a solid non-explosive bullet creates molten metal as it blows through steel plates.

    • Replies:
  172. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    as i recall the first two towers did not collapse, or pancake, into a heap. a skeletal framework remained erect for days, maybe weeks — my mother asked if i’d gone to see the wrecked buildings some time after the event. iirc crews including welders dismantled the skeleton and hauled it away.

    https://cryptome.org/info/ap-911/ap-911-pack.htm

    so the spaghetti and paper analogy has explanatory value.

    but none of that applys to Building 7.

    • Replies:
  173. But plenty of mass above the failure point. The orderly collapse (and it really wasn’t if you look at all the debris flowing sideways out as the top slams into the lower floors) is due to gravity wanting to pull everything straight down and that force far outweighs the sideways forces caused by the metal collapsing and twisting. Once that mass starts moving, the kinetic energy created by it starts to increase by the square of it’s velocity.

  174. Apart from showing that you can deploy pop-psych cant rather rudely what about giving your intellect some real exercise and arguing why, if there were some young, almost certainly ex IDF Israelis high fiving when they had seen the planes hitting the Twin Towers, they weren’t just responding to one of them, for example, having an Ehud Barak moment and saying “it looks like the mad mullah who launched an attack on the WTC 7 years ago has got a smarter successor. You know what this means comrades: Uncle Sam at war in the Middle East!”

    BTW isn’t the quote attributed to Ehud Barak some evidence that the Israelis weren’t involved or was the old military man so loose tongued that he couldn’t help blurting out a damaging admission?

    Before you use such thought-replacement jargon as “in denial” again you might like to ask yourself whether you aren’t presuming that you know a lot more than you can know. In the ordinary case of, for example, “Mrs Bernie Madoff was in denial about having a smooth con man as a husband” it is pathetically naive to suppose that Mrs Bernie Madoff was frank about what she felt and knew. In the even less appropriate case of your current usage you simply have no reason at all to infer any emotion on my part about 9/11 or the arguments about it – although I will concede difficulty in resisting the emotion of contempt for truly bad or lazy arguments and emotional judgments on matters important enough to deserve analytical thinking.

    • Replies:
  175. “none of that applies to WYC 7″

    Quite. A fire was burning within it all day – even more reason to expect fatal weakening of the steel structures. And of course no one has given a plausible reason why any plotters – al Qaeda or CIA or FBI or Mossad – would want to add to the risk of discovery to bring down a building with no symbolic value.

  176. Two question for all of the Truth “deniers”:

    Have there been any skyscrapers imploded since 9/11?

    Did the owners stick to the original, time consuming, and expensive process of rigging the building with explosives, or did they just cut a hole in the roof and have a helicopter haul hot jet fuel up to it, and dump it into the hole.

    You see, in the scientific community, when fortuitous mistakes are discovered, such as when the scientist working on microwave energy discovered that a candy bar in his pocket had melted, someone cashes in upon them.

    • Disagree: Andrew E. Mathis
    • Replies:
  177. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"]
    says:
    • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Criminal Andrew Mathis: is a stalking hasbara Jew, he has threatened physical violence against Revisionists, posts pictures, addresses, phone nos. of those he wants attacked. He has left threatening voicemail messages, on & on. All this illegal activity is documented by many, it’s ironclad.

    Such are those who fear free speech.

    Andrew Mathis also posts as ‘Thames Darwin’ and we see his recent illogical argument demolished utterly here:

    [MORE]

    ‘Is 1% too much to ask?’
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10206

    see previous beat downs:

    ‘Himmler’s note infers Hitler knew of liquidation?’
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2143

    ‘Alleged “mass graves” according to T. Darwin / Andrew Mathis’
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9414

    ‘Andrew Mathis on Dachau, Majdanek, Auschwitz, Treblinka’
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9228

    Anecdotal evidence & “holocaust survivors”
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9238

    holocaust’ denial article by Andrew Mathis debunked here’
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=2816

    ‘Prof. Mc Nally dissects HHP’s Andrew Mathis’ bogus article’
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=2841

    ‘Holo. Hist. Proj.’s Andrew Mathis on Zyklon scent removal’
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=2499

    ‘Green, Mathis refuted / cyanide: lice, humans, & more’
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=267

    ‘Believer org. spokesman, Andrew Mathis, demolished in debate’
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=254

    ‘Holo. Hist. Proj.’s Andrew Mathis attempts damage control’
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=2498

    ‘Email from Andrew Mathis (The Holocaust History Project)’
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1526

    ‘holocaust’ History Project to unveil section on Treblinka’
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=280

    • Replies:
  178. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    A quick reading of this suggests that you have given a pretty good innocent explanation for any verion of the “five dancing Israelis” story.

    don’t twist words. I paid no attention to the fdIs for years, maybe a decade. I don’t recall being aware of the story until relatively recently.

    re Ehud Barak — what was offensive was an Israeli linking the US tragedy to Israel. At the time that made no sense. At the time I had learned of the concept of zionism only a month or two earlier. Israel did not exist in my mental framework or knowledge base. At the time the series of hijackings and bombings were not connected to anything pertinent to my life. What was so stunning about Barak’s statements at BBC was the specificity of the program laid out, and the effrontery of an Israeli declaring a global war on terror that the U.S. would lead.

    At the time Iran had not been involved in so-called terror events in 15 years, according to this PBS listing: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/cron.html

    This assessment of Barak’s BBC appearance argues that it was part of a ‘shock and awe’ scheme: http://empirestrikesblack.com/2011/09/september-11-2001-zionist-shock-therapy-and-the-birth-of-the-lie/

    Finally, it’s noteworthy that Richard Perle and Barak participated in a follow-up conversation at BBC on Sept 11 2001 and recited very similar talking points. One might think they had coordinated their messages http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1544810.stm

    remember: at the time concepts like zionism, Israel lobby, Occupied Palestine, war on terror, Hezbollah, etc. operated only on the margins, to the extent they were relevant at all to me or, I daresay, to most Americans. As the second link explains, Barak used that stunned state immediately after a destabilizing event to introduce to the entire world the blueprint for the ensuing 15 years.

    >>>> “There is only one power which really counts. The power of political pressure. We Jews are the most powerful people on earth, because we have this power, and we know how to apply it.” – Vladimir Jabotinsky, Jewish Daily Bulletin, July 27, 1935.

  179. Another point that needs to be made is that Occam’s razor was invented to explain natural phenomena, not human behavior.

    No, it wasn’t. Nobody writing in this thread seems to have a frigging clue about what Ockham’s razor actually is. William of Ockham wanted to construct a theory of metaphysics that did away with the need to posit the existence of universals in the Divine mind. To that end, he insisted that the likenesses of individuals belonging to natural kinds result from similarities in their individual natures, and that the class or group to which they belonged was a construct of the intellect. Since (on Ockham’s view) metaphysics could do just as well without positing the existence of universals as it could by making use of them, he eliminated them from consideration by citing a generalized principle of economy: “Entities should not be multiplied without cause.” None of this had anything to do with what we nowadays would call “natural” (read: scientific, physical, material) phenomena.

    Thus Ockham, while he would have rejected the title, nonetheless became the father of a whole school of nominalist thought. He was also quite wrong concerning his “razor” and was eventually excommunicated by the pope. The fact that Ockham, for instance, seems to have no problem allowing the existence of universals within the human mind but somehow cannot fathom their existence in the Divine mind remains a genuine curiosity and a puzzle that defenders of Ockham will never successfully explain.

    • Replies:
  180. Did the owners stick to the original, time consuming, and expensive process of rigging the building with explosives, or did they just cut a hole in the roof and have a helicopter haul hot jet fuel up to it, and dump it into the hole.

    Pouring jet fuel into a hole in the roof is not at all analogous to what happened on 9/11. What happened on 9/11 is that an extremely massive airliner smashed into the towers at several hundred miles per hour and then exploded—towers which, moreover, had all their supporting beams along the facade. This accomplished quite nicely exactly what controlled demolitions are supposed to accomplish, i.e. cutting enough supports that the building falls down under its own weight.

    Considering the extensive collateral damage that ensued from this uncontrolled demolition (the destruction of WTC 7 being a rather dramatic case in point) nobody in his right mind would propose this as an efficient means of clearing away undesirable buildings.

    • Replies: ,
  181. OK, so it’s the Mossad, it’s Israel, it’s the Jews.

    Got it.

    You didn’t confirm my assumption that you are French, but I guess you must be.

    It appears that you have very little understanding of your own country’s deep politics, and what the relevant power structures are currently. You really ought to get educated.

    Here is an interesting question: What political forces are behind the constant harassment, persecution really, of the comedian Dieudonné? What is going on there?

    I assume you are aware of that case. It’s an interesting case because it reveals the power of certain political factions in the French State.

  182. The weight of the plane is supposedly 100 tons

    Yes, that is correct. Approximately anyway. You neglect to state the weight of the building.

    Approximately 500,000 tons. Of which about 100,000 tons is structural steel.

    So if a 100 ton plane can do this much damage to a 500,000 ton building, then let’s just imagine a small scale model of the plane that weights 100 grams.

    It hits a scale model of the building that weighs 500,000 grams, i.e 500 kilograms (half a ton) of which 100 kg is structural steel.

    100 gram model plane, a hollow aluminum tube, about the same weight as a cell phone. It hits 100 kg of structural steel. The 90,000 liters of jet fuel, BTW, is now 90 ml, a bit less than half a coffee cup.

    You think the 100 gram model plane hits the 500 kg model building and the model building does what we see in miniature?

    I looked back and your screen name is familiar to me. We had this debate before and I concluded something: you are absolutely, utterly, completely full of shit.

    Anyway, the above relative scale stuff is barely relevant anyway. You have to explain Building 7 and Building 7 was not hit by a plane. To believe that the perfect symmetrical implosion that has to be engineered and implemented by a team of specialists, can occur via uncontrolled fires is akin to believing that the faces carved into Mount Rushmore appeared there by random action of erosion by wind and rain.

    The perfect symmetrical collapse has to be engineered. To claim that it occurred by uncontrolled, unplanned fires, which is the NIST claim on building 7 is an imposture of such a scale that it has doubtless caused many a person to have an immediate LPM!

    • Replies: ,
  183. “when you are pointing to the wikipedia page on any of these events as proof of the official story, you are pointing to a summary of the official story as proof of the official story.”

    As usual, you make no attempt to understand before resorting to ridicule.

    Understand WHAT???

    You’re taking a synopsis of the official story as proof of the official story. The U.S. government claims that they shot Bin Laden and threw him in the sea. If I ask for proof of this, you can point me to Wikipedia and, yes, the relevant Wikipedia page will say that they shot the guy and chucked him ub the sea. And they will have one or more footnotes that point to Western MSM sources that tell that story.

    This is not proof, Kermit! This is like going to some valley with an echo and shouting whatever assertion and then when what you shouted comes back echoed to you, saying that this is proof of whatever it is!

    I’m simply pointing out that before one starts questioning the “official story”, it’s best to know what it is.

    Excuse me, why do you think that I do not know what the official bullshit story is? How did you reach that conclusion, Kermit?

  184. Excuse me not finding time to engage with what seems to me insane rubbish but let me briefly offer the fact that

    Isn’t a “fact” something that is independently verifiable, a statement that no reasonable person would care to dispute, like: “Paris is the capital of France.”

    Well, anyway it’s not the first time you use words in very strange ways. For example, for you a word like “credulous” is used to describe people who decline to believe in all the bullshit, as opposed to people who believe it.

    when I was in New York in April 2002 for two weeks for reasons totally unrelated to geo-politics I spoke to at least five sophisticated educated people who had been looking at the Twin Towers when one or both of the aircraft flew into them.

    I wonder… is this the first time you’ve told this particular lie? I was tempted to go back in the comment archive and find out, just out of curiosity, but it’s too much bother.

    Look, I know people have to make a living, I understand that… but I was wondering… do you actually derive pleasure out of this? When you tell a particularly baldfaced lie, do you get a tingle of naughty pleasure running down your spine?

    But really, what most people would like to know is: What’s the pay like?