Mia Dolan on Eric Hufschmid, 911truth, at Daily Kos

There was a time Eric Hufschmid had the distinction of publishing one of the few books with good clear photos of the WTC towers as they collapsed on 9/11.  Unfortunately, even back before I knew he was a Nazi lover, his ending screed was full of crazy talk.  I spoke of Hufschmid's book with an individual who would go on to be a Nazi apologist, and whom at the time also gave no indication they knew Eric was a Nazi lover.  This is interesting because this same person would go on a crusade in early 2007 to have Eric removed as an organizer in the Arizona conference due to his sudden new book about Auschwitz.  [Correction: It was Eric D. Williams who was involved with the Arizona conference, not Eric Hufschmid.  However the rest of the points and associations re: Holocaust denial still stand.]This gave them some brief anti fascist cred...until they became a moderator at a website pushing softcore Nazi apologism.


But here's the kicker:  the webmaster of that website was told Hufschmid was bad news all the way back in 2006, when they both were members of Holocaust denier Jim Fetzer's Scholars for 911 Truth group.

The person who brought this up was a Daily Kos user by the nick Mia Dolan.   Therefore any objections to Holocaust denial in 2007 by the same people pretending not to associate with them was a scam perpetrated on leftists, hoping they would never look up the scammers posts on DKos.  Which, if they thought about it for two seconds, was pretty dumb:  of course leftists are going to wonder what the hell these closet Nazi losers were publishing on a lefty website.  If nothing else, for laughs.

Ladies and Gentelmen, I give you the outstanding posts of Mia Dolan on the
"Truth" Movement.  I'm only sorry I didn't discover them much sooner.

On Eric Hufschmid: thread starts   http://www.dailykos.com/comments/196456/5352917#c132
  

Cross-examiners?
Jim Fetzer and the Scholars group are professional liars.  There is no testing against inconsistencies - no scientific of evidentiary analysis at all.   My conspiracy theory is that they are being paid by Republicans to undermine any real investigation into Bush's 9/11-related negligences.

by Mia Dolan on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 08:30:32 PM PST

I'm a member of the group 
I'm not paid by republicans to defend my country from people who murder my fellow citizens and human beings and blame it on Muslims.  Who's paying you to shield these criminals Mia?  Do you really think that Americans are that stupid?  You're a character assassin, pure and simple.

by Gretavo on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 04:25:55 PM PST

What group? 
The Scholars?  Do you deny that Eric Hufshcmid is a holocaust denier?  

by Mia Dolan on Sat Mar 25, 2006 at 01:29:28 PM PST

Please cite his holocaust denying work 
and i'll let you know.  i haven't come across anything of the kind, but would like to know why you think he denies the holocaust.

by Gretavo on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 03:28:44 PM PST

Ok, you asked for it 
Here is the link  [http://www.erichufschmid.net/Conspiracies12.htm]
Here are my favorite parts:

This gas chamber was not disguised as a shower. In fact, I would expect the skull and crossbones to frighten people.  (photos available on original site)  This particular photo has been used as evidence that Nazis had gas chambers for killing people, but the Holocaust Truth Seekers complain that  those particular chambers were designed to kill lice in bedding and clothing.  Typhus and lice were serious problem in parts of Europe during World War II. The U.S. Army discovered that DDT will kill the lice. The Germans discovered that cyanide would kill them.
Most Americans have "common sense", and common sense tells us that those gas chambers were for mass executions of people, not mass executions of lice.
However, if the goal of the Nazis to kill the prisoners, common sense would tell us that there were thousands of much easier, much less expensive methods. For example, they could have put prisoners on the trains that have the windows sealed shut. As the trains are rolling down the track, the Nazis could release poison gas. The trains would dump the bodies for burial, and then go back to pick up another load of prisoners.  There was no sensible reason to transport prisoners to a camp where they would have to be fed, especially when you consider that food was in short supply during the final years of the war. Even in America there were shortages of food. Why would the Nazis waste their time, money, and resources keeping these prisoners alive if their goal was to kill them?
And why did the Nazis bother to protect the prisoners from typhus and lice? Why not put the prisoners in the camp, shut the gates, and let the lice and typhus kill them?  
We may never know the true details of what happened at the Nazi prison camps, but just looking at a few of the photos and just thinking about the issue for a few minutes should make you realize that something is seriously wrong with the official story.

Before you say anything about Nazis, look through the photos and do some research. Do you even know where the archives of photos are? How many American professors of history have looked at these archives?
How can anybody be given a degree in history and referred to as an expert in history if he has not even looked at the photos of the Nazi camps? How can Ameircan universities be considered "educational" institutions when students are graduating with almost no understanding of what happened just a few decades ago? The photos shows that some Nazi prisons were real prisons, and some were slave labor camps, but none of them were extermination centers. Germany was losing the war during the final years, and they were desperate for military supplies. The Nazis began rounding up the unwanted people for the labor camps.
The prisoners were given beds and food because they were making supplies for the German military. The Nazis wanted to keep the prisoners free of lice and typhus because sickly, miserable prisoners do not make good workers.

Have I misinterpreted this?  Am I just overstating some legitimate criticism of Israeli foreign policy?  You tell me.   By the way, according to Hufschmid the moon landings were also a hoax.

by Mia Dolan on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 04:52:34 PM PST

where does he say it didn't happen?
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with his analysis but there is a huge difference between DENYING that the Nazis killed millions of Jews (or millions of Russians, Roma, gays, etc.) and questioning specific claims of wrongdoing.  Just because the Nazis were evil (and they were!) does not mean we can accuse them of anything we feel like.  Nothing you quote up there points to anything other than a desire to hold all history, even the history of Jewish suffering, to rigorous standards of truth.  The way you and others throw around terms like "holocaust denier" has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with slander and libel.  Thankfully, people are waking up by the millions to the fact that we cannot trust official accounts of anything.  9-11 is just the latest case of this and one that represents a gross miscalculation by the liars behind it.
Finally, on the moon landing issue, I have not yet taken the time to examine Eric's arguments.  My tendency has always been to dismiss that particular conspiracy theory but I probably will look at the case he makes soon and let you know what I think.  I would never dismiss the possibility that Hufschmid is a plant intending to discredit the truth movement, on the other hand.  His specific criticisms of the official history of Nazi concentration camps does not strike me as reflecting in any way sympathy with Nazis or their cause, which is something you seem very keen to establish on rather weak grounds.  You've shown in your own treatment of the case of 9-11 a remarkable willingness to believe impossible things in order to preserve your Osama did it comfort zone--that to me indicates that you may well harbor prejudices against Muslims, but I wouldn't go so far as to accuse you of denying the fact that the Israeli military has killed hundreds of innocent Palestinians, even if you argued that those murders were justified or the scale of them exaggerated.

by Gretavo on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 11:42:50 AM PDT

Holy crap
Huffschmid writes that the gas chambers were for de-lousing jews, not killing them.    If you really can't figure out what kind of person he is, then you are an idiot.  I think you can, though, so I will stick with my original conclusion:  you are a vile disgusting piece of shit.  If anything, I think you are a plant to discredit the 9-11 truth movement.  If you google yourself, you will see links stating that you actually work for the CIA.

by Mia Dolan on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 08:06:24 PM PDT

Um, a tin foil hat for Mia please! 
And you call us the looney conspiracy theorists.  Not only do you believe that exploding toner cartridges are what the FDNY repeatedly witnessed in the towers, but you also think the CIA is out to get you.  I realize you're in a bind Mia, but you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here.  Pray, where do you get this idea that googling Gretavo (short for Greta Von Dutch, my super secret alias) leads to the CIA?

by Gretavo on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 04:48:42 AM PDT

www.google.com 
Someone named Gustavo Espada, who is a staff assistant at Harvard, goes by the nickname Gretavo on the web, is a member of the scholars group, and posts 9/11 conspiracy theories elsewhere.  Is that not you?

by Mia Dolan on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 12:46:34 PM PDT

wow Mia! do you prefer Reynolds or store brand? 
Again, you said I'm a plant and work for the CIA.  Wrong.  You say, without evidence, that 19 mostly dead hijackers flew planes on 9-11.  Wrong.  You think WTC 7 had no explosives to help bring it down when it had only two little fires on a pair of floors.  Wrong.  You think the Israeli "art-students" were "tracking Arabs" before 9-11.  Wrong.  You say a 757 pierced 3 rings of the Pentagon leaving a nice neat hole in the third ring after penetrating 9 feet of reinforced concrete and then disappeared.  Wrong.  Everything you say you believe, Mia, is wrong.  Even that your name is really Mia Dolan.  As in Mia Dolan the famous psychic?  For all I know, YOU are Gustavo Espada, who seems from the google search I did to be a super spy involved in all kinds of crazy things, judging by the rants of someone who likes to post to indymedia sites around the world.  Really Mia, I think you need a rest.  Jacky Chiles has been working you awfully hard no doubt!

by Gretavo on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 01:53:00 PM PDT

So Mia and others already knew who he was in 2006.  For the record, it's doubtful this clown is a direct CIA asset, however much he acted like one.  Far more likely his family is friends of friends working in government offices who are exploiting their positions to push a Nazi lite agenda and "gretavo" just helps out where he can.  Since con artists and intellegence agents use simular technigues, what better way to hide the con, than encouraging the idea there are COINTELPRO agents or "shills"?  When they're caught screwing with people, the targets assume the government is behind it and are afraid to report them.  It's one of the few strokes of genius these evil clowns came up with.

Pity it doesn't work any more:

Deception/fraud: TXXXXXX, JXXXXXX, 911blogger LLC, and others

Thursday, January 2, 2014

From: 

XXXXXXXXXXX@yahoo.com

To: 

antitrust(AT)ftc.gov

Hello;

I'm writing a complaint about these companies websites:  911blogger.com(9/11 Blogger Llc/TXXXX, JXXXX), and by extension, ae911truth.org(Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth/RXXXXX), rethink911.org(RXXXXX) and wtcdemolition.com(GXXXXX/SXXXXXX)....

The real CIA wouldn't want anything to do with the level of criminal liability these idiots have created with their Byzantine online confidence games.

Thank you Mia Dolan, wherever you are.


Edit:  

Turns out Hufschmid wasn't completely unknown to 911blogger in 2007.  There was an interview published in Jan 2005:

http://911blogger.com/archive/2005/01/eric-hufschmid-interview.html

The wayback machine shows Huffies Holocaust denial material was published at least by April 2005:

https://web.archive.org/web/20050406193450/http://www.erichufschmid.net/Conspiracies12.htm

Which is vitually unchanged from the current page[now hosted at http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Conspiracies12.htm ]

It's possible the page didn't exist in Jan of 2005, but it's more likely DZ didn't dig through the website; none of the Holocaust bollox is easily found on the first page Jan of 2005:

https://web.archive.org/web/20050130174735/http://erichufschmid.net/

But DZ might have had a clue all was not well  when this guy clearly doubts the Moon landings, which is on the front page:

https://web.archive.org/web/20050130174735/http://erichufschmid.net/Science_Challenge_24.html

Update  June 2014: 

It appears Gustavo Espada , and many others, have never stopped being members of Jim Fetzer Scholar's group:

www.scholarsfor911truth.org/21-2/

Currently, Scholars for 9/11 Truth has four categories of members: full members (FM), who have or have had academic appointments or the equivalent; associate members (AM), who have backgrounds and interests relevant to 9/11 research; and student members (SM), who are concerned about these issues and want to pursue them. The special category of society associate (SA) exists for others who wish to publicly support the association.
The presently enrolled members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth are as follows:

[scroll down to associate members]

 Associate Members Sterling D. Allan (AM)

New Energy Congress, Founder, PES Network, Inc, Executive Director

Garry Anaquod (AM)

Sessional instructor, First Nations University of Canada

Robert Anderson (AM)

Magazine Free-Lance Contributing Editor

James Arft (AM)

America First Party

Victoria Ashley (AM)

Architecture and physiological psychology, 911research.wtc7.net

Gwendolyn Atwood (AM)

Clinical psychologist, Ed.D., Harvard University

John C. Austin (AM)

Juris Doctorate; Music publishing; Radio broadcasting

Steve Baer (AM)

Solar energy, Manufacturing

David Benson (AM)

Actor; Conspiracy Theories; Edinburgh Fringe Festival

Michael Berger (AM)

Speaker, Spokesman, 911Truth.org

Mark S. Bilk (AM)

Computer programmer; Electronics technician/engineer; cosmicpenguin.com/911

Steve Bishop  (AM)

Information Technology

Kevin Bracken (AM)

Victorian Branch Secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia

Len Bracken (AM)

Credentialed Journalist, Graduate of GWU’s Elliott School of International Affairs,
Author of “Shadow Government: 9/11 and State Terror”

Jordan Brewster (AM)

Conspiracies

James Roger Brown (AM)

Director, The Sociology Center; Congressional Evidence Book Author

Fred Burks (AM)

Served for many years as a language interpreter for presidents and other dignitaries. WantToKnow.info/911information

D’Anne Burley (AM) 

Talk Show Host, Truthradio, RBNLIVE.COM

John Cameron (AM)

American politics

Bill Carlson (AM)

Webmaster, groups.yahoo.com/group/wrh/

Frank Carmen (AM)

Physics Ph.D., BYU

Thom Clark (AM)

Registered geologist, Environmental geologist

Muhammad Columbo (AM)

Graduate Engineer electronics wide industrial experience

Michael Copass  (AM)

Microbiology, Vaccinology, Immunology

Tim Costello (AM)

Consultant/Promoter

Judy Cunningham (AM)

Health Education, Counseling and Rehabilitation

Rose Davis (AM)

Publisher, Indian Voices

Steve De’ak (AM)

Network professional

Thaddeus Dombrowski (AM)

Mathematics, Computer science, Software engineering

Karel Donk (AM)

Multimedia and Web Design

Eric Douglas (AM)

New York City architect Chair of the Independent Peer Review Committe for the NIST WTC Reports at nistreview.org

Dominic Dudzik (AM)

Physics simulations, Electrical engineering

Brian Duncan (AM)

Fire Protection Engineering; Art and Creative Director; The Flywire, theflywire.com

Curtis T. Dunlap (AM)

Weather forecaster, Global Hawk technology

John Ekonomou (AM)

Attorney at Law

Gustavo Espada (AM)

Media and Culture, Administrator, Harvard University

Scott Fenton (AM)

Physics, Chemistry, Information Technology

Joel Ferrell (AM)

Pilot, Aeronautical engineer,  physics911.net/spine.htm

Bill Fikes, Jr. (AM)

U.S. Army, Website construction

Alex Floum (AM)

Attorney.

Which puts this post in perspective:
[from  http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/3488  ]

everything you need to know about Fetzer...

Submitted by gretavo on Fri, 2014-03-07 04:08.

Jim Fetzer: "I must say I think we're finding out Judy, what happened on 9/11. I'm just blown away by your work. This is the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11 ... I'm going to make a wild guess Judy; I'm going to presume that these [directed energy] beams had to be located in Building 7?"
Judy Wood: "Nope. I don't think so."
Fetzer: "Planes?"
Judy Wood: "No ... I think it's very likely it's in orbit."
Fetzer: "Oh Really?? Oh ho ho ho ho! Oh Judy. Oh my oh my oh my oh my. This is huge ... this is huge Judy."
Non-Random Thoughts on RBN Live: Jim Fetzer interviews Judy Wood; November 11, 2006

Or this : http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2766

Scholars for 9/11 Truth
 Submitted by gretavo on Thu, 2010-05-13 22:03.  The "charlatan" group formed by Fetzer after his split with Steven Jones.

Yeah, whatever.

Fraud and deception are such ugly words...but accurate.  Just take a look at Fetzer's Sandy Hook fiasco:


http://www.twincities.com/ci_22313176/retired-umd-professor-theorizes-that-government-behind-newtown

It won't end well...

Repost of a devastating critique of the Revolutionary Communist Party front faux activist group World Can't Wait.  By their own reports, "truthers" Casseia and Aayers/"Ben Franklin" both attended WCW protest planning meetings, encouraged protesters to contact them, and gathered information on protestors.   They did this concurrently with their "truther" activities. Months afterward, Casseia would admit to knowing the RCP was behind WCW.  But she never admitted to participation in the planning and protests.  

WCW is another elaborate activist fraud like the "truth" movement.  This article was originally at 
 http://www.worldcantwake.org/  and  http://www.collectivereinventions.org/wcw.html
but is no longer online.

Let the peace activist beware....

The World Can't Wake

I

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people are in the city square, chanting slogans against the government and its war. Large numbers of riot police look on nervously. There is a kind of electricity in the air, which is also filled with the sound of drumming, giving the scene a carnivalesque aspect. The crowd roars as the effigy of a hated leader is pulled to the ground...

What is wrong with this picture? Nothing at all, in the abstract, but if one examines the particular canvas known as The World Can’t Wait a little more closely, a very different picture emerges, one that is more alarming than inspiring. Behind the WCW initiative lies not some innocuous, ad hoc coalition—as the generic anti-war message emanating from the WCW would suggest—but an authoritarian cult: the Revolutionary Communist Party, a Maoist organization headed by “Chairman Bob” Avakian. This is an organization with a very selective “conscience” and a very narrow spirit of iconoclasm. For the RCP, dead Iraqi civilians represent genocide, but the millions of Chinese (and Tibetan) workers and peasants who died under Mao represent merely the price of “progress” or, more simply, are not counted at all, disappearing in the airbrushed history lessons of the vanguard party. And as for toppling statues, the RCP may have knocked down one of Bush, but they genuflect before their idols Stalin and Mao, and would be quite prepared to erect a monument to Bob Avakian in Bush's place.

Wittingly or unwittingly, those who choose to march under the banners of The World Can’t Wait are feeding a vampire, thereby giving new life to a political corpse one thought interred forever: the bureaucratic left which brought the world such nightmares as Stalinism, the Cultural Revolution in China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and the Shining Path movement of “President Gonzalo” (Abimael Guzmán) in Peru. To oppose the carnage in Iraq while marching under the auspices of those who espouse authoritarian dogma is a sign both of cognitive dissonance and ethical bankruptcy. And for those protesters who will splutter in righteous indignation at anyone who impugns their militancy, it is worth pointing out that the question of ends and means also includes the matter of whose cause one associates with, and not merely whose war one opposes.

The antiwar movement in the United States is rife with paradoxes and contradictions. Over the past three years of various “mass mobilizations,” the size of the protests have diminished even as the war itself has become increasingly unpopular. Not all of this decline can be attributed to the distorting lens of the mainstream media, which has recently adopted a more critical stance toward the war, or the effects of government propaganda seeking to anathematize dissent. The movement itself has been in crisis, failing to expand beyond its core constituency in terms of mobilizing numbers of people, and unable to adjust its strategy and tactics to respond to new developments.
Among the rank-and-file demonstrators who have come out into the streets against the war, there has been a growing sense of alienation from the official leadership of the anti-war movement. This has manifested itself specifically in a palpable dismay with the sclerotic politics of the International ANSWER coalition, at whose heart sits the Workers World Party, ideologically committed to the defense of North Korea and its Stalinist regime. The sober pacifists of the Peace and Justice Coalition have recently called it a day and broken off relations with International ANSWER. More simply, other protesters have voted with their feet, leaving antiwar rallies in droves even as the amplified, histrionic speeches from the main stage drone on. Unfortunately such disenchantment has not found its positive translation, and in the absence of a conscious search for a different kind of anti-war movement, there has only emerged apathy or a vague dissatisfaction with protest as usual. And it is in the latter waters that the instigators of the WCW have been fishing, with surprising success.
In a more perfect world, any appeal made by the RCP or its front organizations would have been met with scorn and laughter, or simply been ignored. It is a sign of the retrograde times we live in—an era which sees hypercapitalism consolidating itself as a truly global system—that the actions of a predatory and bellicose American state have revalorized the anachronistic and inconsistent politics of “anti-imperialism.” The Latin root of the word imperialism, imperium or power, is ignored in this kind of opposition to the reigning order. Brute power, as exemplified by the actions of the American empire, is denounced, while its arbitrary expressions elsewhere (whether in Castro's Cuba or in the zones controlled by the People's Liberation Army (PMA) of Nepal) are whitewashed or even acclaimed.

To be sure, the mastodons of the bureaucratic left who have been released from their frozen tombs have taken some care to disguise their age: in the case of the WCW, it is not the RCP of old that one sees immediately, but a softer, fuzzier version hiding behind populist sloganeering. Undoubtedly, most of those who will participate in the WCW action will not be RCP members or sympathizers, and many will not even be aware of whose orders they are marching to. Still, it is disheartening that so many have taken the bait and become de facto spear carriers for a wretched group of would be commissars.

II

“In war, truth is the first casualty”
—Aeschylus

In radical politics, ignorance is never an alibi. Moreover, opponents of the present world order self-consciously describe their activity as one of “speaking truth to power”. If this is so, then they must first speak the truth to and about themselves. Those who are oblivious of the RCP’s role in WCW are either obtuse, disingenuous, or both. The same people who have no difficulty in deciphering the links between the Bush Dynasty and the Carlyle Group or Halliburton are suddenly disarmed in the face of the 1930s-style popular front tactics now being used by the RCP. They claim not to know or care who is behind the WCW. The more cynical admit the RCP’s role, but assert that it doesn’t matter, that the only issue that counts is stopping Bush and his war. This kind of political expediency is, even on its own terms, counter-productive. Considered from the viewpoint of sheer pragmatism—and the goal of simply seeking a rapid end to the U.S. intervention in Iraq—allying with the RCP makes no sense, as it only alienates those who could be won over to the anti-war cause.
Even taken at face value, the slogans of the WCW are cretinous: Bush is supposed to “step down” and make way for… Cheney? And just where will Bush take “his program” (as if it were only his to begin with)? The entire thrust of the WCW's public message is a kind of empty posturing. No wonder that it has attracted the kind of celebrity endorsers (Hollywood stars, most prominently) who exercise their profession precisely in the art of posturing. It is disconcerting, however, to see others who seemingly should know better join this inglorious roster. A slew of writers (among them Gore Vidal, Kurt Vonnegut, and Lawrence Ferlinghetti), none of whose literary careers would have been possible in a Maoist state, have signed the WCW appeal. One has the sense of witnessing a kind of mass hallucination in which otherwise critical minds have turned to mush.

Such luminaries are either blind or too lazy to pick up a copy of one of the RCP's own publications and to see how the originators of the WCW talk among themselves. Here, the RCP doesn't mince words or hide behind airy slogans, but rather reveals its true, manipulative face. The January 15, 2006 issue of Revolution published a lengthy speech by Bob Avakian in which he is quite candid about how his organization created the WCW as a vehicle for its own ends. In his rambling style and delusions of grandeur, the megalomaniacal Avakian resembles nothing so much as a Maoist Lyndon LaRouche (at one point, Avakian bizarrely refers to himself as “our Chairman”, as though he were speaking of someone other than himself), but his words bear paying attention to. Avakian openly asserts that:

...we are very serious about and very dedicated to achieving the objectives of World Can't Wait, at the same time as we see and approach this as part of building toward our goals of revolution, socialism, and ultimately a communist world...

(“Polarization...Repolarization...and Revolution” in Revolution, 1/15/06) Of course, it does help to know that each of these goals (“revolution,” “socialism,” and “a communist world”) is tainted when it comes from the mouth of an Avakian, whose idea of a revolutionary society is that of a party-state monolith, with “our Chairman” at its apex. Even for those taken in by such slogans, there can be no mistaking how Avakian's cadres view the militants drawn to the WCW as mere cogs in their bureaucratic machine. The RCP's instrumentalization of the WCW is spelled out by in this same speech, where Avakian talks of:

...the need to pay attention to what has been called “harvesting”—reaping advances, not just in terms of broad and general political influence, but in terms of organization among the massses and organized ties with the masses—harvesting, in that sense, in relation to every significant political event or action. (ibid)

Those whom the RCP seeks to “harvest” might want to think about getting out of the way of the combine bearing down on them. For those opponents of the war whose goals are truly alternative—who seek not only an end to the war, but to the system which produces such wars—allying with the RCP is suicidal. This is an organization which can, at one and the same time, denounce “the police state detentions” of Bush and Cheney while glorifiying the despotism of Stalin and Chairman Mao, whose prison camps and mass executions make the torture chambers of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib look like the work of amateurs. This observation in no way minimizes the bloody deeds of the Bush administration, but it does point up the need for consistency in any perspective that pretends to oppose war and state repression. Exchanging one hypocrisy (“the free world”) for another (“the people’s republic”), one system of domination and exploitation for another, is to trade in illusions, and worse, in corpses.
The amnesia which pervades American culture also afflicts the avowed opponents of the dominant social order, who now seem doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Some, perhaps with the best intentions, are going so far as to literally revive the past, as witness the announcement of a refounding of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Such an undertaking is likely to meet the same fate as the original SDS. In the 1960s, a New Left emerged in the US and elsewhere which at least in its initial stages contained emancipatory possibilities. By the end of the same decade, this movement would dissolve into competing sects all under the sway of different variants of Marxism-Leninism. (One of these sects, in fact, was none other than the RCP, then known as the Revolutionary Union (RU) and already headed by Avakian.) Meanwhile, the organized antiwar movement of today seems to have skipped the emancipatory phase entirely and gone straight to “the highest stage” of senile leftism: the authoritarian party-sect.

Of course, it always possible to make too much of phenomena such as the WCW, which will probably collapse under the weight of its own contradictions or simply fade away as fewer people show up for events that only repeat themselves. Many of those activists who glimpse the Stalinist core at the heart of the WCW enterprise will be repelled by what they find and how they are treated at the hands of the RCP. As for the rest of the world, it indeed can't and won't wait, and will have barely paused to notice the commotion of the WCW. However, there is always a chance of such actions giving more impetus to the authoritarian left, thereby allowing it to frame the choice before antiwar opponents as one of being either with “us” (the WCW and International ANSWER) or “them” (Bush and Cheney). Such a limiting of choice would be a false dichotomy, but in the absence of an alternative, and in the strange situation where a group such as the RCP can pass itself off as a bunch of civil libertarians, it might be persuasive. At the very least, the longer the WCW goes unexposed—and unopposed—the more the RCP will thrive and the more difficult it will be for a more vibrant and autonomous anti-war movement to emerge.

Despite the hyperbolic and overheated rhetoric of the WCW, we are not living in a “fascist” state. (If so, how could the WCW be running full page ads in the New York Times? How could it be receiving permits for its rallies?). This kind of demagoguery is as cheap as it is dangerous, impairing a clearer recognition by others (who see through the bombastic talk of “fascism”) that this is indeed a critical period, one in which many of the remaining social conquests of the past are being eroded or reversed. And if, under Bush and Cheney or their successors, a “state of exception”—a regime of drastically curtailed liberties—does emerge, it is all the more reason for opposition to the state to be itself exceptional: imaginative, creative, and embodying intellectual integrity, even as it acts out of a sense of urgency or, in the worst circumstances, emergency.

III

“The time is now when reality shows itself to be impossible and when the impossible wants to become reality.”
—Gustav Landauer (1914)

All that is required for monstrous enterprises to prosper is for thinking people to do nothing. This applies to the undertakings of Avakian as much as Rumsfeld. And it is not as if there haven't been people who have tried to think and act differently, who have rejected both Party and Pentagon, both “people's war” and capitalist war. Sadly, whether from a failure of nerve or imagination, such people have proved so far incapable of creating vibrant, dynamic, and horizontal spaces within the currents of opposition that have emerged in recent years. There have been “break away” marches that have been monochrome in dress (the “black blocs”) and monotone in message (a “no” repeated endlessly), and, more importantly, have remained mere appendages of larger marches organized by the authoritarian left. There have been a few independent “actions” against the war put on by anarchists, but many of these have seemed mimetic exercises trying to replicate “the Battle of Seattle,” events curiously detached from their surroundings (as were the march and rally in Palo Alto in May and June, 2005).

For years now, the mantra of the anti-capitalist movement globally has been “another world is possible.” Today, such a world seems farther away than ever, as those pursuing the dream of a new world appear to have abandoned it in favor of refurbishing the old. Pathetically, the anti-globalization movement that once was inspired by the authentically new social movements of insurrectionary Argentina now trails after the populist caudillo in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. If the dream of difference is to be revived—and in dreary and dismal times, a visionary opposition to the status quo is needed more than ever—those who dream must be clear about their purpose. In the first instance, this means being clear about what differentiates this world view from that of the authoritarian left, but it also means proposing a different paradigm of social transformation. For too long, anti-authoritarians have themselves been stuck in time, seeking to “reappropriate” or “recapture” the world around them, implying that the world was once theirs (or belonged to some earlier, pristine humanity), thereby failing to realize that it is the re-creation of that social world that is at issue. There can be no minimizing how ambitious and daunting such a task is, in a time when Bush and Rumsfeld talk of a “long war” and pursue their own goal of a total surveillance society; when militant Islam and an equally obscurantist American fundamentalism do battle; and political troglodytes speak in the name of revolution.

The words of Gustav Landauer quoted above are all the more poignant in that they were written as the madness of Word War I began, and some 5 years before Landauer himself would die at the hands of proto-Nazis. His words regarding the state—understood in its most broadest sense, as encompassing the prevailing conditions of social life—remain pertinent:

The State is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of human behavior; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently toward one another.

It is in the here and now that we must act differently. This means in the first place recognizing that one cannot oppose one lie with another. But it also entails an understanding that one cannot speak in the name of Absolute Truth, either, but only on behalf of certain, and necessarily approximate, truths. Rather than proposing a blueprint of a radically different future—a preposterous idea if one believes that any more promising future must result from a process of collective invention and not unilateral imposition—we (who do not presume to speak in anyone's name other than our own, certainly not that of “the people,” who must speak for themselves) can only register a dissenting voice and paint a few insolent brushstrokes on an otherwise dreary landscape.

Reinventions

contact@collectivereinventions.org

Relevant quote that apply to the "truth" movement :

"Of course, it always possible to make too much of phenomena such as the WCW, which will probably collapse under the weight of its own contradictions or simply fade away as fewer people show up for events that only repeat themselves."

"Despite the hyperbolic and overheated rhetoric of the WCW, we are not living in a “fascist” state. (If so, how could the WCW be running full page ads in the New York Times? How could it be receiving permits for its rallies?)"

And my favorite:

"Those who are oblivious of the RCP’s role in WCW are either obtuse, disingenuous, or both. The same people who have no difficulty in deciphering the links between the Bush Dynasty and the Carlyle Group or Halliburton are suddenly disarmed in the face of the 1930s-style popular front tactics now being used by the RCP. They claim not to know or care who is behind the WCW."

Or, as I put it, they can't have it both ways:  "truthers" can't say, through their own research, they've exposed the conspiracy crime of the century and, at the same time, claim not notice all these theories originate and are endorsed by the racist fringe right.


It won't end well.

From Russia, With Love--Part 2

Over a week after the controlled dissent Russia Today event, various idiots on Facebook are claiming the Ukrainian protesters are Nazis or anti-semites or some such...(bit ironic as most of the sheeple pushing these memes push a hella mucho anti-semite conspiracy crap):

Oh I see; the west plan to continue with their hypocrisy in complete disregard of the fact that 90% of Crimea wish to secede from the illegally imposed government of Ukraine.

The newly "created" ultra nationalist government of Ukraine wishes to marginalise/victimise ethnic Russians of which the territory of Crimea is predominately made up of. So it is not only the "will of the people" which is normally enough to make any newly forged country legal, it is arguably to prevent a new harsh and deadly reality of a government coming to power which is going to oppress them.

These so called leaders that now say "ILLEGAL" to this vote by a territory's people are so obviously puppets of western corporate and military interests and obviously don't give a flying fk about the safety or the desire of the people of Crimea. Shame on all of you...

Is there any source to these claims?

-90% of Crimea want to secede
-the Ukraine government is "illegally imposed"  
-the Ukraine government is newly "created" and ultra nationalist
-they want to marginalize/victimise Russians

It is doubtful.  Real journalists are getting sick of this disinformation rubbish:

Kiev's protesters: Ukraine uprising was no neo-Nazi power-grab
 
As life returns to normal in Kiev, Luke Harding encounters frustration over Russian claims of a fascist coup 

Luke Harding

The Guardian, Thursday 13 March 2014 16.14 EDT

The Kremlin describes last month's uprising in next-door Ukraine as an illegitimate fascist coup. It says dark rightwing forces have taken over the government, forcing Moscow to "protect" Ukraine's ethnic Russian minority. The local government in Crimea is preparing for a referendum on Sunday which could lead to Russia annexing the region. Yanukovych, meanwhile, has fled to Russia.
Schilling, however, was an unlikely fascist. A father of two daughters, he and his wife Anna had lived in Italy. They had four grandchildren. Moreover, he was Jewish.

Oops.  Not that it's possible to be Jewish and support fascist; that is the purpose of "alibi Jews" promoting anti semitism.  But in this case, it is very unlikely given more compelling reasons for the uprising:

" With Ukraine on the brink of invasion and division, most people in Kiev blame the country's troubles on the former president. "This is Yanukovych's fault," Zhenia, a pensioner, said, surveying the battleground in Institutska Street, where many were gunned down. She was crying.
Nearby, visitors bowed before makeshift brick shrines, some decorated with gas masks and helmets. Others crossed themselves. One child's drawing said: "Eternal glory to the heroes".
According to those who took part in it, the uprising was a broad-based grassroots movement, launched by people fed up with Yanukovych and involving all sections of society. Some demonstrators were indeed nationalists. Others were liberals, socialists and libertarians. There were Christians and atheists. There were workers from the provinces, as well as IT geeks from Kiev more at home with MacBooks than molotovs.
Its victims were a diverse bunch. The first was an ethnic Armenian; another Russian."

Even Russians involved.  Of course Russians are some of the experts on exaclty how corrupt--and manipulative--Russia can be.

"Yanukovych had just announced that he was dumping Ukraine's preparations to sign an association agreement with the European Union."

 Oh, that dastardly European Union!  And now we come to the crux of why  the Tin Foil brigade is being mobilized to defend Russian propaganda:  To fight those New World Order Illumiati Jews.

A brief scanning of the timeline on Wikipedia will show only a delusional fool can insist on believing Russia is only acting to defend ethnic Russians from "oppression ":

On February 24, 2014, Russian Special Forces^[38][39] without insignia arrived^[40] on the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine. They seized control of the Crimea region.^[41]

Russian authorities disputed that the forces were Russian military.[42

If they're there to protect ethnic Russians, then why was Russia slow to admit to the action?

Putin Says Those Aren't Russian Forces In Crimea
 --
Russian soldiers have not occupied government buildings and surrounded Ukrainian military bases on the Crimean Peninsula, Russian President Vladimir Putin insisted Tuesday during a news conference near Moscow at which he gave an account of recent events that contradicts reports from the ground.
Instead, he told reporters that the heavily armed men are "local self-defense forces."
What's more, anything Russia has done, Putin said without offering specifics, has been part of a "humanitarian mission" to protect ethnic Russians in Crimea.
--
In Kiev, Kerry seemed surprised by a reporter's question about Putin's remarks earlier Tuesday.
"He really denied there are troops in Crimea?" he asked, interrupting the question.

Ah, a non denial, denial:  "We didn't do it, but if we are doing it, it's because of a noble cause."
The idea that Russia is "protecting " anyone, is right out of Putin's mouth:

A statement from the Kremlin said Putin emphasized to Obama the existence of “real threats” to the life and health of Russian citizens and compatriots who are in Ukrainian territory. The statement indicated that Russia might send its troops not only to the Crimea but also to predominantly ethnic Russian regions of eastern Ukraine.
“Vladimir Putin emphasized that, in the case of a further spread in violence in eastern regions (of Ukraine) and Crimea, Russia maintains the right to protect its interests and the Russian-speaking population that lives there,” the Kremlin statement said.

Obama even diplomatically  pretends he thinks Putin is not lying, and offers a saner solution:

Obama told Putin that he would support sending international monitors to Ukraine to help protect ethnic Russians.

From the DUH files.    

Comments in the Guardian article get quite fiesty and on point regarding the blatant propaganda:

Polvilho BlikSnyman

14 March 2014 9:48am

I'm also starting to suspect that Russia is pulling a Koch brothers stunt.

Oh, they've been doing it for years. Witness the comments below the line on any of the recent articles about Russia's homophobic legislation.

I really don't understand what they're trying to achieve. NO ONE takes any notice of the bottom half of the internet.

Do they send a report back to the FSB "We have successfully infiltrated a small cohort of bored office workers and shut-ins with our propaganda. Victory to Mother Russia!".

Substitute "small cohort of bored office workers and shut-ins" with washed up "truthers" on Facebook pinning for the glory days, and they nailed it fair and square.

That veteran webwarriors from the "Truth" movement are pushing Putin's propaganda is depressing, but not unexpected.  Russia Today embracing "truther" stories almost from day one was always suspect.   I personally believe the people who run Russian Today also know the "truth" movement is a fraud.  But maybe they think they're demoralizing the USA by having conspiracy bobble heads claim the US government is run by Jews?  

If so, they didn't understand exactly how fringe the "truth" movement is.  If Russia Today had reached market penetration no later than 2004, maybe 2006, things might have been different.  Hell,they might have done some good by sheer force of "dumb luck", by say promoting the Feal Good foundation.   

But RT didn't get traction pushing "truther"/Ron Paul news until 2009, and the writing was already on the wall for the "truth" movement.  Any potential critical mass of Americans to manipulate to undermine the presidency or American politics to the tune of Russian propaganda had long since left by 2007-2008.

One last thing:  I'll just put this here:

Russia Today Drops All Pretense Of Editorial Independence, Publishes Pro-Putin Propaganda

When Russia Today launched in 2005, its operators insisted that despite being funded by the Russian government, the news outlet would function independently of Moscow. The channel even rebranded to simply RT in 2009 to avoid being seen as an entirely Russian news network.

 On Wednesday, however, RT seemingly dropped all pretense of being editorially independent, by praising Russian President Vladimir Putin’s highly controversial annexation of Crimea.

This can't end well.

Where did the Space Beams come from?

In late 2007, Craig Lazo made a big hairy deal about me not caring about CB-Brooklyn/Judy Wood/Space Beams etc.   He took it personally to rather a  demented degree.

At the time it was just crazy weirdness in a sea of crazy weirdness.  Now it makes sense.  It was an opportunity to try to drive off someone who had finally been identified as NOT one of the real truther "hive".

Ignoring me would have worked so much better.  But in Mr. Lazo's case, any time there is a choice between a messured, rational response and sensational attention-whoring, attention whoring will win every single time.  

Well, Mr.  Kt Lazo will be happy to see I'm now giving the "Space Beam" theory my full attention.  Specifically who first pushed it:  Nazi wannabe Christopher Bollyn of the American Free Press. 

No, not Judy Wood.   Bollyn floated this theory at a conference of Holocaust deniers, almost five years before Fetzer introduced Judy Wood.

This is detailed in the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report "The Next American Führer?, Issue Number:  107, Fall 2002, in the article  'Risking Their Freedom':

 'Risking Their Freedom'  

A group of 'internationally renowned scholars' probes 9/11. And, to the surprise of no one, identifies a familiar enemy.

 -----

House "journalist" Christopher Bollyn, who works for Carto's anti-Semitic American Free Press (a new incarnation of his Spotlight newspaper), said he knew something was fishy thanks to a friend in Denmark who taped 1,200 hours of news coverage of the attacks — much of which was later edited out by news services with a secret agenda.

One of those tapes showed "someone coming out of the towers" who said "he was hit by a bomb in the building. But then the FBI took him away."

The government, Bollyn added, sold the World Trade Center to "a [Jewish] strip club owner and he then insured the buildings quickly for $3 billion and now he wants $7 billion. ... So for $100 million in borrowed money he gets $3 billion."

Bollyn also objected to the use of an Iranian engineer to examine the collapse of the Trade Center's towers. "Don't they have any American engineers?"

And then there was one "Gregory Douglas," with his top-secret German document proving conclusively the Bush Administration and Israel knew about and likely orchestrated the attacks.

"Israel is always involved in everything!" he said.

That certainly got the attention of the attendees. Except, as a sheepish Bill White noted on his "libertarian socialist" Web site later (White had initially hailed the document as revelatory), it turns out that Douglas is an accused forger.

Veteran European journalist Gitta Sereny has written that Douglas forged a document that he told her was proof that the Americans and British had helped two Nazi war criminals escape Europe in 1945. Douglas' later book on one of them, Gestapo boss Heinrich Muller, was, she wrote, "filth" that was as "fake" as the earlier document.

From there, it got weirder still. In a question-and-answer period following the speeches, Bollyn suggested that the Trade Center towers might have been zapped with a "disintegration ray." The fine dust would be the logical outcome of such a ray.

Partin chimed in, saying it actually would have taken two disintegration rays to do the job.

Well, that's not completely surprising now Fetzer is out of the Holocaust Denial closet.  Confirms that Judy Wood is a victim and front woman for the space beam theory. 

Still leaves it open as to what benefit a group of Jew haters would gain by creating and spreading toxic tin foil Kool-aid.  

I have no answers for that one, not even solid informed speculation.   The best wild ass guess is uber whacked out "theories" will guarantee a pool of easily duped followers, easy to manipulate (they'll believe anything!).  How this can be considered a political asset in the long haul boggles the mind.  Any short term benefits gained by recruiting people so far gone to take "disintegration rays" seriously, will be overwhelmed by the liability of a base too crippled in critical thinking skills to make good judgement calls in the interest of the group.

On the other hand, maybe Bollyn and company don't care.   Maybe all they want of their dupes is an amorphous army of zombies to defend them without question.  The Ronulians of Paultard fame acted exactly like this, being  impervious to facts, logic and reason while the spread the "message" of Ron Paul.  Who can forget the scathing intellectual rejoinders  like: FREEDOM! LIBERTY! CONSTITUTION! 

Just substitute INSIDE JOB, and you get the same dynamic, but with a smaller pool of zombies.    And if that was the goal, it is also why it was ultimately a failure.  

Even at the height of the fakery/space beam craze, with Yahoo list-serves spawning like crazy, the most active participants were a core of scammers directly responsible for making up the theories, and a loyal following either in on the con or completely duped by it.    I would be surprised if the people outside the con, genuinely duped by it, exceeded 100. That's why they tripped over themselves when they got a "live one", real people who were taking their theories seriously(at least until they saw they were invented by crazy people).  These people were useful to "prove" fakery was real activism. 

But, since these theories never had a broad appeal, (in fact a main tactic to seduce people was it's narrow appeal, a la, "the sheeple don't understand these special secrets you are privy to") the demise of the beam/fakery "movement" could have been predicted by anyone with political savvy. 

In layman's terms, these theories were "too crazy for non crazies to care".  This was a handy camouflage. No one ever guessed the source of the Space Beam theory were actual Neo-Nazis. Neo-Nazis, and fellow travelers who were "risking their freedom" to organize this tripe: 

WASHINGTON — After you sent in your $180 registration fee, and after receiving your own secret code and calling the secret phone number that came with it, the hidden location was finally revealed.
The "galaxy of internationally renowned scholars and journalists," those brave souls who have "Risked Their Freedom to Bring Truth to the World," would be meeting at the Holiday Inn on The Hill.

There, amid families on budget trips to the American capital, some 120 people who do not believe that the Holocaust occurred gathered in June to swap dark tales of conspiracies and cover-ups. It was, in the words of The Barnes Review that sponsored it, "a history-making event" — a view not shared by most of those familiar with Review founder Willis Carto, a veteran anti-Semitic extremist.

This is part of a greater organizing of American and European racists with sympathizers of Islamic terrorist groups.  This was analysed in the Intelligence Report, spring 2002 Issue :

National Alliance, Holocaust Deniers React to 9/11 Attacks


By Martin A. Lee
As Germany's defeat loomed during the final months of World War II, Adolf Hitler increasingly lapsed into delusional fits of fantasy.
Albert Speer, in his prison writings, recounts an episode in which a maniacal Hitler "pictured for himself and for us the destruction of New York in a hurricane of fire."
The Nazi fuehrer described skyscrapers turning into "gigantic burning torches, collapsing upon one another, the glow of the exploding city illuminating the dark sky."
An approximation of Hitler's hellish vision came true on Sept. 11, when terrorists destroyed the Twin Towers in New York, killing nearly 3,000 people. But it was not Nazis or even neo-Nazis who carried out the attack — the deadliest terror strike in history allegedly came at the hands of foreign Muslim extremists.
Still, in the aftermath of the slaughter, white supremacists in America and Europe applauded the suicide attacks and praised Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the massacre.

It's a four page article full of good information, but little dirrectly relevent to the "truth" movement until page four:

'Working for Their Races'
The Philadelphia-based American Front thinks highly of Osama bin Laden, too, describing him as "one of ZOG [Zionist Occupation Government, the name many extremists give to the federal government, which they believe is run by Jews] and the New World Order's biggest enemies."
And it is not alone. Wolfgang Droege, one of 17 Canadian racists who traveled on a "fact-finding mission" to Libya in 1989, is similarly enamored of bin Laden, seeing parallels between bin Laden's struggle and others supporting "racial nationalism" in North America.
"I've had dealings with Black Muslims, I've had dealings with Arabs, I've had dealings with people of various races, and I realize that some of these people are as motivated as I am in working for the interest of their race," Droege told MacLean's magazine.
While they wouldn't want bin Laden, or anyone of non-European descent, living next door, leaders of the hard-core racist movement in the United States have seized upon the Sept. 11 attacks as an opportunity to expand their strategic alliance with Islamic radicals under the pretext of supporting Palestinian rights.
After hijacked airplanes demolished the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, a number of Muslim newspapers published a flurry of articles by American white supremacists ranting against Israel and the Jews.
Anti-Zionist commentary by neo-Nazi David Duke appeared on the front page of the Oman Times, for instance, and on an extremist website based in Pakistan.
Another opinion piece by Duke ran in Muslims, a New York-based English-language weekly, which also featured a lengthy critique of U.S. foreign policy by William Pierce, head of the rabidly racist National Alliance.
In the wake of Sept. 11, several American neo-Nazi websites also started to offer links to Islamic websites.
The psychological dynamics that propel the actions of Islamic terrorists have much in common with the mental outlook of neo-Nazis.
Both glorify violence as a regenerative force and both are willing to slaughter innocents in the name of creating a new social order.

The potential for an alliance between American neo-Nazis and Islamic terrorists — an alliance that could develop into strong operational ties — cannot be ruled out given the long and sordid history of fascist links to the Muslim world.

Another reason this can't be ruled out is the long an sordid history the architects of the 911 "truth" conspiracies like Larouch and Tarpley have with political players in the Middle East.  The most recent manifestation of SPLC predictions has been the Iranian Press-Tv propaganda outlet which Tarpley is invested in. 

Another is a Blame the Jews and Hollywood conference heavily attended by friends of the Larouche cult and White Power political players like Merlin Miller.

Merlin Miller, center, with Barrett

Webster Tarpley, far back

Mike Gavel with Fetzer

And, don't forget, these anti Semite Nazi lovers invented the 9/11 Space Beam Theory in 2002.

It can't end well.

The Anti-Semite Elephant in the Room: Libertarianism

 When I first started reading "truther" websites and forums, I noticed a high percentage of self identified Libertarians.  Knowing a few Libertarians IRF, I didn't think any thing of it.  This was when Libertarian meant socially liberal and fiscally conservative, with a wild streak of anarchism(that current Libertarians are pretending never happened).  They had well reasoned arguments, meant well, but were a touch naive about how real politics worked. And they never shouted "Liberty! Constitution!" as a final debate gambit.

None of these people are Libertarians today.  Either their understanding of the world grew or they learned how nuts Ron Paul was, and they were done.  I know a couple of self identified Libertarians now, one of which is simply uninformed.  The other is a lefty Libertarian, and lets be real: the LP couldn't care less about them. 

For a while on the forums almost everyone claimed to be "Libertarian".  Years later, with hindsight, one could see this was a safe strategy:  chose a political party that can mean anything, left or right, and the scammers could network with anyone without suspicion.  It was like when everyone claimed to be Buddhist.
 http://911blogger.com/news/2008-02-12/buddhists-question-official-reality-fri-8-feb-2008-002824-0000
 http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-08/graeme-macqueen-911-context-resistance-radio#comment-245642
 http://911blogger.com/news/2006-10-29/constitution-party

 I don't believe that liberty is "God-given" -- I don't believe it has to be "given" by any entity for us to have it, and for it to be our inalienable right. (I am not, incidentally, an atheist -- I am a Buddhist, and Buddhism is a non-theistic religion, as you may know.)

 Whatever... I know a real Buddhist and this isn't one. 

 It was an non offensive theism that could mean anything, and was easy to fake.  In later years, they discovered Atheism, even easier to fake!  But if anything was the theism of the "Truth" movement, it was Libertarianism.  And it was the Libertarian Thinktanks who were responsible for much of the Anti-Semite propaganda in 911 truth.

Many criticisms of the "Truth" movement are valid, but usually incomplete.  The James Randi Forums are famous for picking theories to death, (a laudable activity), but barely scratching the surface of who invents them and the political goals behind them.  Part of it is cultural dissonance; there is a core of intellectuals who hold to "libertarian" ideals, and understandably are uncomfortable about what they'll find if the dig too far into the Libertarian party connections to the "truth" movement.  Understandable, but unwise, especially for those noting the proliferation of Anti-Semite theories in 911truth.  As it turns out, others have observed the Libertarian think tanks pushing Antisemitism, and the direct connection to the creation of 9/11 conspiracies:

Documenting Anti-Semitism Within the Libertarian Movement

Anti-Semitism is suspicion of, hatred toward, or discrimination against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage. The term was coined by non-Jews in late 19th century Europe as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"). In recent years, as the libertarian movement has grown, so has the anti-Jewish movement within this clan of activists supposedly concerned with promoting liberty and freedom for all of humanity.

The word libertarian comes from the root word "liberty" and refers to individuals who favor less government intrusion and are distrusting of government power. In the U.S., the libertarian movement, broadly speaking, consists of think-tanks, Ron Paul activists and organizations, and those affiliated with the Libertarian Party.

The anti-Semitism in the libertarian movement has manifested itself in all three categories at alarmingly high levels. It's difficult to imagine how any libertarian activist or scholar can envision success for their movement with such anti-libertarian sentiment and malicious bigotry in its midst.

We learn about "alibi Jews", like Davide Cole  and Gilad Aztmon:

The libertarian movement is ripe with Alibijude, or alibi Jews. Their job is easy: If someone is accused of anti-Semitism, the alibi Jew is brought in as a defending witness. In a movement with so few genuinely Jewish individuals, it is easy for the alibi Jews to get away with just about anything. They are free to bash Israel, defend anti-Semitism, promote the idea that a non-interventionist foreign policy would have been wise from 1939 to 1945, and misinform people about Jews and Judaism. It's an easy and worthwhile endeavor for the Alibijude, because they help anti-Semites get away with their crimes while warding off any anti-Semitic images within the libertarian movement.

And then we come to the main event: Blaming Jews for 911

Libertarian Think-Tanks and Anti-Semitism

Libertarian think-tanks are notorious for pushing an anti-Israel agenda. Of course, one can distrust the Israeli government while also holding no hard feelings toward Jewish individuals. But it is difficult to imagine that U.S. think-tanks would focus so much on Israel when one considers the small percentage that foreign aid constitutes in the United States federal budget. (Less than one percent of the federal budget goes toward foreign aid.) Three "libertarian" think-tanks do exactly that -- and much worse.

Justin Raimondo, the prime mover-and-shaker behind the antiwar.com website (and whose main source of income is antiwar.com), blames Israel for the attack of September 11, 2001. Of Jews, Raimondo says, "The savage mind, however, works differently. Shorn of what we would recognize as a moral sense, the savage glories in his capacity for pitiless violence. It's a survival mechanism: in his world, red in tooth and claw, instilling fear in your opponent means winning more than half the battle. As a survival strategy, it's like the one inmate who mutters ominously to himself while exhibiting all the characteristics of a violent psychotic: the other prisoners give him plenty of space because they think he's liable to do anything. So, too, in the case of the Israelis, who are signaling their willingness to go to any lengths in order to instill the fear of their wrath far and wide." He also calls Israel a racist theocracy and a "shitty little country".

What's interesting about this screed is how it project the right wing militia psychosis on an entire group of people.  Not even a nation, but the Jews. 

No discussion about Libertarianism and conspiracies can be complete without Ron Paul, who has himself contributed amply to the anti-Semite propaganda machine:

The Ron Paul Movement and Anti-Semitism

Savvy readers already know about Ron Paul's long-time ties to neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers. It's no surprise, then, that the movement surrounding him has the same ties and conspiratorial ideas about Jews and Judaism. But the real question, asked by The New Republic's James Kirchick in 2011, is "Why Don't Libertarians Care About Ron Paul's Bigoted Newsletters?" Kirchick concludes that "the benefit of indulging in" the idea that the U.S. is on the verge of bankruptcy and collapse "is that it sets the stage for the arrival of a savior". Each libertarian think-tank, organization, or politician are setting themselves up to save the day. Conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve, the bankers, Israel, and the Jewish Elders of Zion help fuel the narrative that the world is collapsing around us.

Ron Paul's long-time ally Justin Raimondo's problems with the Jews is outlined above. Another close associate of Paul, former chief-of-staff Lew Rockwell, now runs The Ludwig Von Mises Institute in Alabama. There, eager young students are indoctrinated in Austrian economics -- an anti-mathemics-based brand of economics that favors cultural conservatism, anti-interventionist foreign policy, and the gold standard. And Jew-bashing. The Ron Paul newsletters, approved by Paul and likely written by Rockwell, talk about Jewish conspiracy theories and Israel in newsletter after newsletter. Subsequently, these publications as well as fundraising letters from Paul were sent to mailing lists of the anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying mail list of Willis Carto's tabloid, The Spotlight. Willis Carto is one of the most influential American anti-Semitic propagandists of the past 50 years. Mr. Paul has never acknowledged or apologized for what everyone knows to be the truth. Lew Rockwell was paid as a Ron Paul staffer from the late 1970s until at least the mid-1990s. He was the operations man behind Paul's efforts to demonize Jews and Israel. Additional specifics about Paul's anti-Semitic activities are provided here.

Ron Paul's organization, a (c)(3) educational group called the Campaign for Liberty -- whose Board of Directors is comprised of various Paul family members that financially benefit from its successes -- permits its users to promote anti-Jewish conspiracy theories at its website. Campaign for Liberty activist Clay Douglas has been promoting "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", an anti-Semitic hoax purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination, at the organization's website since 2008.

It's like one pathetic train wreck of failure after another.  But not to people invested in these ideas.  Their goal has never been  "911 truth" or ending the FED.  And a winning third party is a pipe dream.

The cold fact is no third party is viable in the current political system.    It's a numbers game and the math is brutal:

If Party A  is  lefty  and   Party B is  righty 
Then Party C will split the vote of whichever party it has the most political similarity to.
Ergo, Party C will always help the main party with opposing politics to Party C win.

Maybe I'll make a cute little diagram later.  The point is in the current American political system, third parties will never win.  And to make a system where a third party would be viable, would require changes moving to instant run-off voting and extreme campaign finance reform.

These all smack of "socialism" ; the irony is no organization fielding third parties would go for this. In this situation they'd be defeated sounder than the already are.

So what's the point of fielding them?

To build  a base. In the case of the Libertarian party, a base for the far right.

It's not necessarily a base to vote for third candidates, though it's possible the brainwaves in the Libertarian thinktanks think so.   More likely they're just as aware of the mathematics and are cynically exploiting their base's ignorance.

There's also the money making aspect.  Funding from "money bombs", "donations" and other stunts
give the appearance of grassrootsyness.  And even if the have a handful of big donors, they can keep up the facade of being a legitimate party if they can point to donations from all the little people they scammed.

And there's the propaganda aspect.  They need an army of sheeple to spread these theories they invent in their super sekrit thinktank club houses.  And at the base of the propaganda is blaming Jews for...well, anything.

I don't agree with Chelm's final assessment, that the goal is the destruction of Israel:

Jewish libertarians or classical liberals -- or others who are pro-equal rights (pro-decency, really) should refrain from further participation in the libertarian movement. It actively works against Jews. It is not concerned about liberty for religious minorities; rather, quite the contrary. Moreover, there is little doubt that the modern libertarian movement is dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

Knowing these frauds as I do, the Libertarian propaganda is just one of many fronts to recruit and rally a fringe right base.  They are as dedicated to destroying Israel as they are to 911 "Truth" or "ending the FED".  In other words only as far as it serves their political agenda.  In the case of Israel, I doubt the people managing CATO or Von Mises would be happy if Israel disappeared: then they wouldn't have a target to rally the ignorant. 

That in no way diminishes the danger of regular folks, Jews or otherwise, who cross paths with a loon hyped up on these conspiracies.

A final note on the Chelm article:  More proof these toerags deliberately targeted the left antiwar movement to obscure their intentions and goals like many of the "truther" frauds:

antiwar.com

Granted it was the Bosnian war, but I guess if it worked then, they figured the "pretend to be antiwar" meme would work for pushing anti Semite propaganda around the Iraq war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiwar.com

The site was founded in December 1995, as a response to the Bosnian war. It is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation, operating under the auspices of the Randolph Bourne Institute, based in Atherton, California. It was previously affiliated with the Center for Libertarian Studies and functioned before that as an independent, ad-supported website.^[2]

They even claimed to be singing Kumbaya with the left, though admittedly they're honest about being Libertarians:

 This site is devoted to the cause of noninterventionism, and we have many regular readers who are pacifists, leftists, "greens," and independents, as well as many on the Right who agree with our opposition to imperialism. But our own politics are libertarian: our opposition to war is rooted in the concept that war is the health of the state, as Randolph Bourne put it. With every war, America has made a "great leap" into statism. In 1952, Garet Garrett, one of the last of the Old Right "isolationists," said it well: "Between government in the republican meaning, that is, Constitutional, representative, limited government, on the one hand, and Empire on the other hand, there is mortal enmity. Either one must forbid the other or one will destroy the other." This is the perception that informs our activism, and inspires our dedication. Noninterventionism abroad is a corollary to noninterventionism at home.

The editors were active in the Libertarian Party during the 1970s; in 1983, we founded the Libertarian Republican Organizing Committee, to work as a libertarian caucus within the GOP. Today, we are seeking to challenge the traditional politics of "Left" and "Right." At present, none of the existing parties or activist groups offers an effective vehicle for principled libertarian politics. Yet, even in the absence of a party of liberty, we cannot abstain from the struggle. Since opposition to war is at the heart of our philosophy, and single-issue politics is the only avenue open to us, Antiwar.com embodies the politics of the possible.

Our dedication to libertarian principles, inspired in large part by the works and example of the late Murray N. Rothbard, is reflected on this site, and we make no bones about it. While openly acknowledging that we have an agenda, the editors take seriously our purely journalistic mission, which is to get past the media filters and make the truth about America's foreign policy as widely known as possible. Citing a wide variety of sources without fear or favor, and presenting our own views in the regular columns of various contributors, we clearly differentiate between fact and opinion, and let our readers know which is which.

People just didn't understand what kind of Libertarians they were and the fact fringe right Libertarians can't coexist with any leftist.

From Russia With Love

For the record, I have no strong opinion about Abby Martin's motives.  She could be what she appears: a naive idealist sucked into the conspiracy/Patriot movement honestly believing she's part of a progressive movement. This happened to a friend of mine; they(various Patriot sympathizing "truth" groups) pulled out all the stops to convince him he was "on to something".
However it doesn't speak well of Martin's judgement or investigative skills.  She can't have it both ways:  She can't claim to be so informed to have uncovered the government conspiracy of the century and, at the same time,  be completely oblivious that all the sources for this claim originate from fringe right propaganda.

In the wake of the Crimean situation, an Russia Today  journalist speaks out.  But are things what they seem?

Some quotes:

The New Republic:

"When Russia Today anchor Abby Martin ended a broadcast of her media analysis show “Breaking the Set” by looking sternly toward the camera and condemning Russian intervention in Crimea, many expressed amazement that this shiny-haired insurgent was bucking the Kremlin party line. Huffpo UK described the tirade as “spectacularly off-message.” Glenn Greenwald, to no one’s surprise, praised Martin’s bravery. And Martin’s speech did indeed sound quite remarkable, especially amid the blinkered unreality of RT’s overall coverage of Ukraine (which Newsweek has called a “Cold War theme park, without the breadlines.”) As her segment came to a close, Martin gravely said: “Just because I work here, for RT, doesn't mean I don't have editorial independence and I can’t stress enough how strongly I am against any state intervention in a sovereign nation’s affairs. What Russia did is wrong.”

The outburst was not exactly surprising. Martin has always been something of a rabble-rouser and a speaker of truth-to-power, though historically her specialty has been tearing down American political and cultural institutions. She grew up on the west coast and created a 9/11 truther group in San Diego. RT first found her through Occupy Oakland, when she was covering the crackdowns there as a citizen journalist. She worked for a bit as an Occupy correspondent, and then got called to DC to interview for an anchor job. (As she has described her initial reaction to the job interview: “There’s no fucking way in hell I’m moving to DC…lobbyist douchebag central.”) She has a stated affinity for psychedelic drugs. Things she has said on air since joining RT include “Fuck the media, fuck the candidates, fuck the corporatocracy,” and ads for her show feature her smashing a TV set with a sledgehammer. And it's also unsurprising, of course, to think that RT would have relished Martin’s Crimea comments as a neat little opportunity to point out its own openness to dissent."

"But the most telling part of Martin’s rant on Russia Today was its aftermath, during which RT’s image management seemed to go off the rails. The Telegraph reported that RT executives told the UK’s Channel 4 that Martin had been “misled by American media.” Meanwhile RT released a statement yesterday praising itself vis a vis Martin's behavior: “Contrary to the popular opinion, RT doesn’t beat its journalists into submission, and they are free to express their own opinions, not just in private but on the air.” The statement then added: “In her comment Ms. Martin also noted that she does not possess a deep knowledge of reality of the situation in Crimea. As such we'll be sending her to Crimea to give her an opportunity to make up her own mind from the epicenter of the story.” But alas Martin hadn't heard about her employer’s generous offer until the media reported it, and promptly replied on her Twitter feed that she would not in fact be going to Crimea. This whole murkiness of message helps explain why RT’s public perception as a Kremlin-managed monolith is off-base: much of RT's programming is less a well-oiled Russian propaganda machine than a defensive, shapeshifting retort to the Western media—less focused on a coherent foreign policy agenda than on asserting itself as an alternative to American cable news, its ideological chorus so miscellaneous that it somehow includes both Abby Martin and Larry King. "

Or reality is more complicated:

Tablet:

RT Anchor’s Riff Not as ‘Rogue’ As It Seems
How Abby Martin’s on-air jab at Russian intervention in Crimea helps Putin

By James Kirchick |March 4, 2014

 Yesterday, Abby Martin, a host on the Kremlin-funded television network RT (formerly known as Russia Today), used the end of her program to voice opposition to Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s Crimea region. “Just because I work here at RT doesn’t mean I don’t have any editorial independence. I cannot express how strongly I am against any state intervention in a sovereign nation’s affairs,” Martin said. “What Russia did is wrong.”

"And so, on the face of it, Martin’s dissent from RT’s party line was a breath of fresh air, earning her plaudits across the internet. “For all the self-celebrating American journalists and political commentators: was there even a single U.S. television host who said anything comparable to this in the lead-up to, or the early stages of, the U.S. invasion of Iraq?” asked Glenn Greenwald, a frequent presence on the network. The Huffington Post praised Martin as “going spectacularly rogue.” Some have drawn comparisons to my own brief appearance on RT last August, when, invited to talk about the sentencing of Wikileaks leaker Chelsea Manning, I instead launched into a two-minute tirade against the Kremlin’s homophobic witch-hunt, which got me booted off air."

Highlighting mine.   Ask why wasn't Martin booted off the air.  The probable reasons can't be good.

But Martin’s comments, while certainly a departure from the stale Kremlin talking points offered 24/7 on RT, were hardly as rogue as they might initially seem. Martin couched her criticism of Russian policy by stating that “the coverage I’ve seen of Ukraine has been truly disappointing from all sides of the media spectrum, and ripe with disinformation,” implying that the objectively more accurate reporting of Western outlets are somehow on par with her own network’s blatantly skewed coverage.
“Above all my heart goes out to the Ukrainian people, who are now wedged as pawns in the middle of a global power chess game. They’re the real losers here,” she added. Again, this frames the Ukraine crisis as being equally the fault of Russia and the West, when, from the start, the situation has been instigated and inflamed solely by Moscow. There are no EU or NATO tanks occupying Ukrainian soil. 

 Highlighting mine.  Still wondering?

Those praising Martin would do well to acquaint themselves with the entirety of her work. Before being hired by RT, Martin was a prominent voice in the 9/11 conspiracy movement, which seems to be a job qualification for RT given the amount of airtime it gives to fringe views. In a 2008 video of a 9/11 Truth Movement protest, Martin can be seen stating that the attacks were an “inside job.” She knows this, she said, because, “I’ve researched it for three years and every single thing that I uncover solidifies my belief that it was an inside job and that our government was complicit in what happened.” On her program, she regularly gives air to outrageous conspiracy theories, including the notion that water fluoridation is a pernicious government plot to poison unsuspecting American citizens, an old bugbear of the extreme right-wing John Birch Society. She has also accused Israel of using “Hitler’s methods … to maintain a Jewish majority.”

 Last February, Martin devoted a segment to the history of American “false flag” operations. The term is a favorite of conspiracy theorists, who employ it to describe hostile acts carried out by rogue states and terrorists groups, which are, they claim, really the work democratic governments seeking a pretext for infringements on civil liberties, war, and other acts of imperialist aggression. Beginning with the 1898 sinking of the USS Maine, which ignited the Spanish-American War, up through the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, Martin, quoting from a website titled, “Israel Did 911,” characterized false-flags as “when a government uses an elite special forces operations cadre to attack that nation-state while falsely bearing the flag of another country or group.”

There is no excuse for a supposedly well informed journalist to be quoting the anti-Semite website Rediscover911.com as a credible source. The link is now a 404, but is still in wayback.  Screen with quote below:

This article, with the quote in question, was also posted by Holocaust denier Fetzer on his website:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/05/real-reasons-nation-states-institute.html

Only two other blogs have it:

http:// conspiracy-theory-secrets.com/uncategorized/global-watch-weekly-report/

http://hatonn.blogspot.com/2012_09_01_archive.html

See, the 911 "truth" front is a very, very small club now the hordes of duped leftists have drifted away and the fringe right roots are exposed.  At this time it shouldn't take much investigation skills to realize the conspiracy is a fraud.  Either Martin read it herself and didn't notice the lunacy of her source, or, more likely, someone forwarded the quote and she used it without further investigation, which at the least is sloppy.  But then this is the same person who remains  in deep denial about Ron Paul writing his racists newletters and making money off them for years.

It would be wrong to conclude that, because it hasn’t publicly reprimanded or fired her for her recent comments, RT is proving itself to be an objective purveyor of credible news and information. “Contrary to the popular opinion, RT doesn’t beat its journalists into submission, and they are free to express their own opinions, not just in private but on the air,” the channel said in response to Martin’s broadcast. They should tell that to William Dunbar, a former RT journalist who resigned after he was prevented by the network’s management from reporting on the Russian military’s deliberate bombing of civilian targets during the 2008 Georgia War. “On any issue where there is a Kremlin line, RT is sure to toe it,” Dunbar said.

Indeed, far from damaging the propaganda efforts of the Russian government, Martin’s momentary act of nonconformity plays right into the Kremlin’s hands. RT will now be able to hold up her 60-second departure from the official script as evidence of its editorial independence, as further proof of its vital role as a “counter-hegemonic” news source in a world inundated by corrupt and corporate “Anglo-Saxon media.” Think of Martin as the puppet opposition in a dictatorship, created and sustained by the powers that be as a façade of democracy with which to dazzle credulous Western observers, a practice that Putin has himself perfected.

As a general observation, Russia Today was a match made in heaven between post Gorbachev cynical Russian power brokers and the collective of fringe interests represented by von Mises, Cato, Ron Paul and Larouche.  A foreign news outlet with apparent neutrality was a perfect platform to push conspiracy garbage with a veneer of credibility.   It's exactly the same schtick with PressTv, right down to targeting an English speaking audience.

Even FOX news won't host the Holocaust Denying Duo Fetzer and Barrett anymore, so it was inventive of the "consortium" to find a mainstream appearing megaphone, complete with their own photogenic bobble head.

Russian interests might be bankrolling some of these activities.  One website in particular, otherwise dead, has overwhelming Russian traffic:

    04:28:53    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.21)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxx
        19:26:44    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.21)
 wtcdemolition.xxxxxxx
        19:26:34    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.21)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx
        16:21:02    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.21)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx
       16:20:59    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.21)
 wtcdemolition.xxxxxxx
        07:57:02    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Russian Federation    Donekoservice Ltd (91.201.64.16)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx
        07:56:56    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Russian Federation    Donekoservice Ltd (91.201.64.16)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx
        05:04:57    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.21)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx
        05:04:53    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.21)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx
        04:50:30    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.11)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx

[And this is one of many reasons I know, not suspect, but know, it was all a scam.   INTERPOL won't be happy if it involves money.]

If, as I suspect, donations are drying up to support the "truther" con, and some parties are looking for foreign sources of funding, the "consortium" might be biting off more than it can chew.  Tarpley, Fetzer, David Duke, Ron Paul, etc and other fringe drama queens are amateurs compared to Russian politicians and the Russian mafia.  The only one of the scammers I'd lay money on to hold his own is Larouche, and that's just because he's nuts with an army of cultists at his back.   The rest are used to bluffing and blustering with bullshit, usually using the Internet. 

The Russians don't roll that way.  Anyone involved with Putin's propaganda machine, needs to think twice about what they're getting into:
 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/09/mafia-state-luke-harding-review

As Luke Harding's book on his own years in Moscow captures well, life in Russia has not changed much: random inconveniences, bizarre coincidences and maddening interventions leave one confused. Did I really fail to lock the office? Why are there cigarette butts in my loo? Why does my phone battery go flat all the time? Am I going mad – or are they really out to get me?
The incidents mostly comprise petty vandalism, silly stunts (someone left a sex manual in his bedroom) and phones that play back your previous conversation.

[BTW?  This is the sort of rubbish the fringe "truther" creeps pull when they want someone to think "agents" are out to get them, to hide the fact it's a con.  But, unlike the Russian mafia, the creeps have no state protection. They just hope no one figures it out.  Oops. ]

More examples of journalists beaten in Russia:

Russian Journalists, Fighting Graft, Pay in Blood
Beaten Russian Editor Is Told to Say It’s His Fault

Martin is being played.

None of this can end well.