Monday, January 19, 2009

Anthony Beevor's Orwellian Hit Piece on 9/11

Link to hit piece

As Anthony Beevor says in his hit piece, the threat of totalitarianism comes from within. In fact, it comes from within the government that subverts the democratic and republican institutions of the country in concert with demagogues such as Beevor who use newspapers and television to subvert the truth and propagate their nonsense.

That “over the past dozen or so years, television and movie-makers have managed to blur the border between fact and fiction to an unprecedented degree” is to put it mildly. In fact, this has been ongoing for decades and the government-private monopoly on public influence was only broken in the past dozen or so years. The problem that Beevor and his fellow propagandists have with this is that unlike Hollywood, those newly-empowered film lack the backing and funding of DoD and military-industrial complex-owned corporations like NBC.

According to Anthony Beevor and Damian Thompson, any information that contradicts the government-backed official doctrine is 'counter-knowledge'. This would include 9/11, effectively dismissing the omission of WTC7 from the original 9/11 Commission report as a 'minor discrepancy', as if the collapse of an entire building were just a minor detail.

Beevor pins this phenomenon on the 'dramatic decline of traditional moderate forms of religion', despite the fact that Loose Change was made in the United States, a country where religion is hardly on the decline. The pseudo-psychological notion that conspiracy is a 'belief' used to fill a void is addressed as Myth #12 and others. Aside from that, his statement implies a spiritual 'need' when that same 'Wikipedia age' has led to the unprecedented propagation of atheist ideas and questioning of religion, especially Christian doctrine.

In the next paragraph, Beevor makes the remarkable claim that Russian presenters and their audience debated over a film that they accepted as 'completely true'. Far from being 'historically illiterate', if there is any people who have lived through totalitarianism, it is the Russians, which casts suspicion on the idea that they were suspending their disbelief. After all, their own former president, Vladimir Putin, was involved in an FSB false flag operation prior to his election which started the Second Chechen War.

Beevor claims that 'studies of internet sites' (without naming which sites or studies) reveal an 'unholy alliance between left-wing 9/11 conspiracy theorists, right-wing Holocaust deniers and Islamic fundamentalists'. He supports his theory by linking the 9/11 Truth Movement to 'American creationists' and 'Islamic websites'. Anyone who actually 'studies' internet sites will find out that the 9/11 Truth Movement has a broad base of support which has nothing to do with left or right, which includes hundreds of credible professionals. Examples of professional organisations supporting 9/11 truth include Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Scholars For 9/11 Truth And Justice, as well and dozens of international and local activist organisations, which can be found on 911Blogger.com.

Without a hint of irony, Beevor concludes that the 9/11 Truth Movement could 'become an article of faith tomorrow', unless every citizen and historian 'fight all attempts to exploit the ignorance and gullibility of audiences'. This is exactly what the 9/11 Truth Movement is about, Mr. Beevor, and you and your fellow charlatans will be exposed. Heliocentrism was proven by Galileo after centuries of cover-ups by the Catholic Church, and like Biblical geocentrism, the official 9/11 religion will be exposed as the fraud it is.

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Why neither Obama nor Hillary will save you

Obama is a controlled puppet. So is Hillary.

The corruption in which the Clintons were involved is well documented. This includes a laundry list of political assassinations, including Vincent Foster. They are not strangers to false flag operations; the above link provides extensive documentation on how the Oklahoma City bombing was staged just like 9/11, which explains the confrontations of Hillary's husband with the 9/11 Truthers and his forceful denials.

Bill Clinton attended the well-known elitist Bilderberg group, as admitted by Hillary, although she denied insider reports that she attended in 2006. Bill Clinton is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. The CFR acts as a politburo for the Republicrats and pushes for world government and the North American Union, whilst AIPAC keeps US foreign policy favourable to Israel. And although I am not a fan of Chomsky since he dismissed the 9/11 Truth Movement, he documents very well in this article the ideology of the Trilateral Commission. And of course, Clinton voted for both the war in Iraq and the USA PATRIOT Act and voted for its reauthorisation in 2006.

Obama's record, contrarily to the claims of his fawning admirators, is hardly better. Despite his vote against the war in Iraq, Obama is not anti-war. He advocated surgical missile strikes on Iran, as pointed out in the Antiwar article. He advocated invading Pakistan on two occasions -- in 2004, in the event that 'violent Islamic extremists' take over, and recently, to strike Al CIAda on Pakistani territory, in violation of Pakistan's national sovereignty.

Like Clinton, he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and panders to AIPAC, both of which pre-select US candidates and have a stranglehold on US foreign policy. Clearly, given the track record of Israel, supporting it in any way automatically disqualifies someone from any claim to being anti-war.

In addition Obama is supported by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who founded the Trilateral Commission and was responsible for funding the Mujahedeen (known today as Al CIAda) against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Notwithstanding the inconvenient truths listed above, common sense would dictate that one should avoid the candidates who owe their popularity to being forced down people's throats by the media, the same media that sold the war in Iraq for the Bush regime and still promotes the official 9/11 propaganda in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. The same media, also, which has used the dirtiest of tactics to censor non-anointed candidates like Ron Paul by rigging polls, as proven by this recording, and by making him disappear from graphs when he wins third place. The same media that achieved the Orwellian distinction of entertaining almost simultaneously the idea that Obama is both a radical Muslim and a racist black Christian. The convergence of interests between both allegedly independent parties and the corporate media became even more blatant when it was announced that Rupert Murdoch would raise funds for Clinton's campaign.

Now that no other candidates than Hillary, Obama and McCain have any chance of winning (as was predetermined since the beginning), those staged elections should be boycotted; doing otherwise will legitimise the control of the self-appointed elite and its facade democracy.

Saturday, October 20, 2007

William Gibson Slams the 9/11 Truth Movement

As good points as Gibson makes on how 9/11 affected American society, his stance on the 9/11 Truth Movement unfortunately reads like a n official textbook of propaganda.



Contrarily to his pseudoscientific psychological analysis, a government that would be ready to sacrifice the lives of its fellow citizens as an excuse to massacre more people in wars is nothing to be reassured about. It is a threat far closer to home than terrorists living in a cave on the other side of the planet. If anything, this would make people avoid the theory like the plague because it is far too discomforting regardless of how simplistic it supposedly is.



Although the US government certainly got the results it wanted from the crime it committed, it was by no means competent in covering it up, as the onslaught of evidence and the explosion of the 9/11 Truth Movement coming out every week will tell.



If the 9/11 events were so complicated as claimed by Gibson, then why would a group of 19 Arabs, far less competent and without state resources, have been succesful where a government wouldn't have been? On the other hand, if allegations that the attacks were sponsored by the government were so simplistic, then why would the US government have been incapable of it?



Anyone who would study the non-official theories of 9/11 would find that it involves many complexities, such as compartmentalisation of the actors involved in the conspiracy, and explanations of why the media has been complicit with government, not only for 9/11 but also for the war in Iraq, and in promoting a war against Iran.



Is it not far more simplistic, on the other hand, to claim that 19 arabs would plot in a backwards country to smash airplanes in buildings because 'they hate our freedoms'?



Gibson's comments on conspiracy theories have nothing original about them; those are propaganda talking points repeated over and over by the US media. Gibson should have known better than blindly believing those assumptions. I am the co-author of an article that addresses them, many of which originate directly from a CIA memo:



For a more detailed analysis of anti-conspiracy propaganda:



Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Gatecreepers

I, I-Am-Wolfman and The-Owl are pleased to announce the opening of our new site!

http://www.gatecreepers.com/

Our masterpiece is our article Debunking Conspiracy Myths:

http://www.gatecreepers.com/entries/exclusive-debunking-myths-on-conspiracy-theorie/

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Honouring the victims of 9/11

This is a tribute to the victims of the tragedy of September 11, 2001, for the occasion of the 6th anniversary of the event.

In the post-9/11 era, we are all victims, for all of us are losing our liberties in the hands of governments exploiting the deaths of the 3000 people murdered for political purposes.

The hundreds of thousands of people of Afghanistan and Iraq who died in the wars following 9/11 are furher casualties of the event, and were slaughtered by the hands of the same murderers who carried out 9/11.

The true mass murderers are running at large and controlling our political institutions, watching our every movements in return for security, whilst at the same time stabbing us, gagging us, and robbing us blind behind our backs.

It is our duty to all the victims of 9/11 to bring them justice by investigating and pursuing the true perpetrators of the event, in spite of the official lie promoted by the controlled media. We shall not be abashed, and shall not allow our endeavours to be stopped by their attempts to defame us.

The truth shall prevail.

Monday, July 16, 2007

We got published!

I am pleased to announce that our Debunking BBC article, written by I-Am-Wolfman and yours truly, has been published in the current issue of Global Outlook!

Here are scans of the relevant pages:













Sunday, April 22, 2007

On Globalism and the Convergence of Political Parties

Another post in the series of my material translated from French:

http://lequebecois.actifforum.com/Elections-2007-f10/Nous-on-vote-pas-t3059-60.htm

I took this number somewhere on this forum. Whatever the case, I doubt that laziness is one of the primary reasons behind voter abstention. One thing is clear, there is an increasing number of people who do not see a real difference between the opposing parties, and for whom votes no longer count.

This is not an isolated problem. It is a tendency which can be seen everywhere in the Western world, whether in the UK, in France, in Australia and at the federal level in Canada, and even more so in the United States whose two main parties practically form a single party system. I do not believe,also, that this is a coincidence.

In all those countries, there is a convergence of parties towards neoliberalism. This is not a coincidence, either, but the result of collusions on a global scale, through international summits and think tanks, such as the Trilateral Commission, the Davos forum, the Bilderberg Group, and many others.

The latter, whose existence was long known but only recently admitted in the media, regroups ever year CEOs and media magnates with heads of states and political parties from throughout the world. Lucien Bouchard himself took part in that meeting in 1971 (CORRECTION: Lucien Bouchard did not take part in the 1971 Bilderberg meeting, this was a confusion with another document as pointed out later by a forum member), with Robert Bourassa and Pierre-Elliott Trudeau at the same meeting (and that is only after a Google search...). Same story at the federal level: Stephen Harper and Paul Martin have both taken part to one Bilderberg meeting or another; Stéphane Dion as well, Brian Mulroney, Conrad Black, etc. And the cherry on the sundae: add to that David Rockefeller and Paul Démarais (ADDENDUM: well-known Canadian oligarch who owns Power Corporation). Do a Goole search if you don't believe me...

People will have different opinions regarding the Bilderberg Group; some will say that it's a conspiracy, others will say that it's only meetings. Be it as it may, it comes to no surprise that people complain that all parties look the same.

By the way, i would like to warn that one of the results leads to federalist propaganda which attempts to smear the Quebec sovereignty movement as a globalist agenda. However, the page is an article from a book, and the site that hosts it takes no position on Quebec.


My follow-up, in answer to the Suzanne Lachance's remark that one almost needs to be part of those organisations to be Prime Minister:

You would be surprised at how accurately you put it. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair took part in those meetings even before they became known; it was only after that they started climbing in the ranks. An article by Reuters even made the admission that "Invited as speakers, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were groomed at Bilderberg meetings before rising to fame as U.S. President and British Prime Minister respectively.".

A memo from the British House of Commons revealed that Kenneth Clarke took part in the same meeting as Tony Blair as a representative of the opposition party without having declared this to Parliament as required (which Tony Blair did), however.

In the United States, it's a real joke. The Bush family now considers Bill Clinton their "surrogate son". Bush Jr. and Kerry were both members of the same Yale fraternity, known as the Skull and Bones. The United States even have their own internal version of the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, of which all major American politicians are members, as well as the heads of the national banks, media magnates and CEOs. This could practically be called the American equivalent of the Soviet politburo.

Our own politicians are not excluded. Brian Mulroney is a friend of Bush Sr. and both have been members of the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm with numerous ties with the American military-industrial complex, as well as Bush Jr., former British Prime Minister ohn Major, Canadian ambassadors Allan Gotlieb and Frank McKenna, and former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed. And guess who? Paul Desmarais!

More on anarchism and technology

I wrote those forum posts a while back on a Quebec sovereigntist forum. I also wrote some posts on elitist groups, which I will make available in a separate post.

The original thread (in French) can be found here:

http://lequebecois.actifforum.com/Elections-2007-f10/Nous-on-vote-pas-t3059-0.htm

First, on the justification for the state:


Original post by Suzanne Lachance:

[quote="Laukev7"]I don't see why people here make such a fuss about anarchists. It's a perfectly legitimate political movement based on political theories.[/quote]

Agreed.

Theories which are however very utopian, founded on the imagined goodness of mankind. As if humans could lose their inherent nature...

They're romantics!

I know some of them, and they get pissed off when I tell them that... Some others concede that I'm right, while remaining attached to those theories, which represent an ideal that they will never attain. A sort of lost paradise.

Fallen angels...


----------------------------------------

My response:

quote]Theories which are however very utopian, founded on the imagined goodness of mankind. As if humans could lose their inherent nature...[/quote]

Governments themselves were created in the assumption that elected officials were inherently good. The theory that politicians govern for the common good of the population comes from Plato, a very utopian philosopher, so much that he advocated totalitarianism. Aristotle, the successor of Plato, was more down-to-earth and prefered democracy, but he also justified the existence of government on the achievement of the common good. He claimed, amongst other things, that the state is a natural evolution of society.

To be more precise, Plato's theory stated that society should be led by the best men and women (Plato was a feminist) in order to optimise its productivity. According to him, the best state is that in which each works on the single task at which he is the best. Therefore, according to him, leaders had to be philosophers and have total control, whereas the others should not get involved in politics.

Today, the theory behind the state changed quite a bit after the philosophers of the Enlightenement, who reexamined the Ancient Greek and Roman political theories, and invented their own models based on republican ideals, the separation of powers and the protection of individual liberties. It is thus now assumed that governments which are elected will govern for the good of the people (ADDENDUM: provided that people keep their government in check). However, the justification for the state remains the same.

But when we see today our corrupt governments, working at the behest of corporations and subservient to foreign powers, send thousants and millions of people to their deaths in unjustified wars, even though they are supposedly elected and accountable to the people, one needs to wonder whether it is really more utopian to live in a stateless society than to have a state, to pretend that it is a 'realistic' solution to improve our lives.

From what I have read about anarchists, what they promote is not an utopian society, but mainly a society without a central government. It is obvious that such a society would not be without its own problems, but it does not mean that all alternaties to the state need to be utopian.

In my opinion, whether one thinks good or bad of anarchism, one day or anther the state will have to be dismantled. Not only for the utopian reason that technology would permit this, but aslo because of the dystopian reason that modern technology, especially Big Brother technology which are evolving exponentially and are being adopted in seeral countries to keep the population under surveillance and control, would become so advanced that legal and constitutional protections would become insufficient to protect people's privacy. We will have no choice, then, but to increasingly decentralise powers in order to protect our individual freedoms from the governments and the corporations, in the hands of which technology would give them intolerable powers.

(Whew! why do I have to write such long posts!)



The following is my post clarifying how technology will eventually lead to the rejection of the state:

When I talk about technology, I refer not only to communication technology which could allow decentralised governance (it is not only, like Raymi says, a question of increasing productivity).

The first article in the Toronto Star (unfortunately no longer available, I asked someone who saved it to send it to me) (ADDENDUM: article mirrored in my previous Laukev7 Report post), discusses the possibility of a society where the compulsory implanting of microchips would become the standard, probably and fittingly under cover of increasing productivity. The second article, which is still available, reports that it would possible to record an entire life on a cube-sized computer.

In the beginning of history, hierarchical systems were necessary because there were no technologies available to substitute manual labour, nor to allow the common people to inform themselves, or to meet together and make decisions. As technologies developped, societies have become more democratic.

But at the same time, technologies make it possible for dictatorships to increase their control over their populations. The first modern totalitarian regimes only started in the 20th century with the USSR and Nazi Germany, when the press, radio, television, telephones and other tools could be used by the state to infiltrate every aspect of people's lives in a way they could not ever before.

Coercion is a fundamental aspect of hierarchical systems. The current system, while democratic, remains a hierarchical system, both on the political and the economic sides (capitalism, corporatism, etc). In older days it may have been a benign price to pay, but while technology will allow the political system to become democratic, it will on the other hand multiply tenfold the control exerted by hierarchies, to the point where only a slight amount of authoritarianism will become unbearable, leading the population to increase demands for constitutional protection and decentralisation of powers, on pain of devolving into dictatorship. Even if legal protections were sufficient, democracy can be eroded and devolve into an authoritarian regime (a process currently taking place in the United States), in the hands of which the technologies would become extremely dangerous, not only to freedom but for the survival of humanity (right now the neocons in the US are pushing for space armament...).

One can look at the current situation in the UK to come to my conclusions. Even though the governments are ostensibly elected, real control rests in the hands of corporations (a situation even worse in the US) and of technocracy; surveillance cameras litter the streets in the UK, many of them equipped with speakers which scold passer-bys when they spit their gum or order them to walk on the sidewalk.

Admitting the fact that people will always come up with technologies to counter the evils of other technologies, power resources are concentrated in hierarchical institutions, namely corporations and governments. The average people only have limited resources to resist or protect themselves from the state and the corporations.