I'm in the process of retiring the old blog as a private archive.
After a bout of sparring with a racist twit on Twitter, I had reason to reconsider my choice a couple years back of leaving the old blog up. While on one hand I want nothing I've written to go to supporting the 911 truth scam, on the other hand it is helpful for people to see how insidious the scam can work on a person who was only ever interested in 9/11 as it applies to antiwar activism.
And also, it is quite amusing to make every link Craig "Killtown" Lazo directs people to, go to information exposing him as a lying, manipulative, fraud. That's almost as diverting as the aforementioned racist twit making such claims as "The Egyptians were White" and "JewsDID911".
I ask you....
However, cheap entertainment aside, traffic logs show a certain aversion to visiting this one new blog, with the "911 'TRUTH' IS RACIST FRONT GROUP" all but shouted across the header. In fact, visitors are observed looking at the old blog, no doubt looking for "proof" Jenny is still involved with the so called "movement". On discovering this not to be the case(really, not the case, since 2010! ...morons) most are very charry of clicking the link to the new blog.
I intend to fix that.
Soon this will be the only public blog and visitors will not be able to pretend otherwise. When time permits I will be republishing individual blogs that should be kept in the public eye...like the entire Holocaust Bollox thread. Because apparently the fact that Auschwitz was a DEATH CAMP stills needs to be highlighted.
And, of course, the continued embarrassment of the fools who scammed an anti racist into a racist front must continue with as many laughs as possible. Stay tuned.
¡No Pasarán! and Allons-y!
Kicking the remains of the racist front known as the 9/11 Truth Movement
Feb 25, 2015
Feb 17, 2015
The 9/11 Truth Movement's Dangers by Christopher Hayes
This is a reprint of a Nation article by CBS on December 2006. It contains a fair bit of context about how the theories presented by the "truther" fraud sounded compelling during the Bush administration's era of lack of transparency and a general analysis of why suspicion by itself isn't a bad thing. Suspicion only become conspiracism when it continues beyond known facts or credible methodology.
This article only adressed the theories and political climate, particularly around the release of "Loose Change". It does not touch on the fringe right-wing players behind the conspiracy scene or their politics, agenda or motives.
I'm reprinting in whole because I'm worried the history of sane coverage of the emerging "movement" is disappearing; already the Nation copy is gone. This can give undue credence to the meme by certain dishonest "debunkers" anyone sucked into the "Truth" movement was just randomly "nuts". It was a political fraud, every last bit of it. The only people responsible for a fraud are the people who created it and wittingly promoted it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-9-11-truth-movements-dangers/
According to a July poll conducted by Scripps News Service, one-third of Americans think the government either carried out the 9/11 attacks or intentionally allowed them to happen in order to provide a pretext for war in the Middle East. This is at once alarming and unsurprising. Alarming, because if tens of millions of Americans really believe their government was complicit in the murder of 3,000 of their fellow citizens, they seem remarkably sanguine about this fact. By and large, life continues as before, even though tens of millions of people apparently believe they are being governed by mass murderers. Unsurprising, because the government these Americans suspect of complicity in 9/11 has acquired a justified reputation for deception: weapons of mass destruction, secret prisons, illegal wiretapping. What else are they hiding?
This pattern of deception has not only fed diffuse public cynicism but has provided an opening for alternate theories of 9/11 to flourish. As these theories — propounded by the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement — seep toward the edges of the mainstream, they have raised the specter of the return (if it ever left) of what Richard Hofstadter famously described as "the paranoid style in American politics." But the real danger posed by the Truth Movement isn't paranoia. Rather, the danger is that it will discredit and deform the salutary skepticism Americans increasingly show toward their leaders.
The Truth Movement's recent growth can be largely attributed to the Internet-distributed documentary "Loose Change." A low-budget film produced by two 20-somethings that purports to debunk the official story of 9/11, it's been viewed over the Internet millions of times. Complementing "Loose Change" are the more highbrow offerings of a handful of writers and scholars, many of whom are associated with Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Two of these academics, retired theologian David Ray Griffin and retired Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones, have written books and articles that serve as the movement's canon. Videos of their lectures circulate among the burgeoning portions of the Internet devoted to the cause of the "truthers." A variety of groups have chapters across the country and organize conferences that draw hundreds. In the last election cycle, the website www.911truth.org even produced a questionnaire with pointed inquiries for candidates, just like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or the Sierra Club. The Truth Movement's relationship to the truth may be tenuous, but that it is a movement is no longer in doubt.
Truth activists often maintain they are simply "raising questions," and as such tend to focus with dogged persistence on physical minutiae: the lampposts near the Pentagon that should have been knocked down by Flight 77, the altitude in Pennsylvania at which cellphones on Flight 93 should have stopped working, the temperature at which jet fuel burns and at which steel melts. They then use these perceived inconsistencies to argue that the central events of 9/11 — the plane hitting the Pentagon, the towers collapsing — were not what they appeared to be. So: The eyewitness accounts of those who heard explosions in the World Trade Center, combined with the facts that jet fuel burns at 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit and steel melts at 2,500, shows that the towers were brought down by controlled explosions from inside the buildings, not by the planes crashing into them.
If the official story is wrong, then what did happen? As you might expect, there's quite a bit of dissension on this point. Like any movement, the Truth Movement is beset by internecine fights between different factions: those who subscribe to what are termed LIHOP theories (that the government "let it happen on purpose") and the more radical MIHOP ("made it happen on purpose") contingent. Even within these groups, there are divisions: Some believe the WTC was detonated with explosives after the planes hit and some don't even think there were any planes.
To the extent that there is a unified theory of the nature of the conspiracy, it is based, in part, on the precedent of the Reichstag fire in Germany in the 1930s. The idea is that just as the Nazis staged a fire in the Reichstag in order to frighten the populace and consolidate power, the Bush Administration, military contractors, oil barons and the CIA staged 9/11 so as to provide cause and latitude to pursue its imperial ambitions unfettered by dissent and criticism. But the example of the Reichstag fire itself is instructive. While during and after the war many observers, including officials of the U.S. government, suspected the fire was a Nazi plot, the consensus among historians is that it was, in fact, the product of a lone zealous anarchist. That fact changes little about the Nazi regime, or its use of the fire for its own ends. It's true the Nazis were the chief beneficiaries of the fire, but that doesn't mean they started it, and the same goes for the Bush Administration and 9/11.
The Reichstag example also holds a lesson for those who would dismiss the very notion of a conspiracy as necessarily absurd. It was perfectly reasonable to suspect the Nazis of setting the fire, so long as the evidence suggested that might have been the case. The problem isn't with conspiracy theories as such; the problem is continuing to assert the existence of a conspiracy even after the evidence shows it to be virtually impossible.
In March 2005 Popular Mechanics assembled a team of engineers, physicists, flight experts and the like to critically examine some of the Truth Movement's most common claims. They found them almost entirely without merit. To pick just one example, steel might not melt at 1,500 degrees, the temperature at which jet fuel burns, but it does begin to lose a lot of its strength, enough to cause the support beams to fail.
And yet no amount of debunking seems to work. The Internet empowers people with esoteric interests to spend all kinds of time pursuing their hobbies, and if the Truth Movement was the political equivalent of Lord of the Rings fan fiction or furries, there wouldn't be much reason to pay attention. But the public opinion trend lines are moving in the truthers' direction, even after the official 9/11 Commission report was supposed to settle the matter once and for all.
Of course, the ommission report was something of a whitewash — Bush would only be interviewed in the presence of Dick Cheney, the commission was denied access to other key witnesses, and just this year we learned of a meeting convened by George Tenet the summer before the attacks to warn Condoleezza Rice about al Qaeda's plotting, a meeting that was nowhere mentioned in the report.
So it's hard to blame people for thinking we're not getting the whole story. For six years, the government has prevaricated and the press has largely failed to point out this simple truth. Critics like The New Yorker's Nicholas Lemann might lament the resurgence of the "paranoid style," but the seeds of paranoia have taken root partly because of the complete lack of appropriate skepticism by the establishment press, a complementary impulse to the paranoid style that might be called the "credulous style."
In the credulous style all political actors are acting with good intentions and in good faith. Mistakes are made, but never because of ulterior motives or undue influence from the various locii of corporate power. When people in power advocate strenuously for a position it is because they believe in it. When their advocacy leads to policies that create misery, it is due not to any evil intentions or greed or corruption, but rather simple human error. Ahmad Chalabi summed up this worldview perfectly. Faced with the utter absence of the WMD he and his cohorts had long touted in Iraq, he replied, "We are heroes in error."
For a long time the credulous style has dominated the establishment, but its hold intensified after 9/11. When the government speaks, particularly about the Enemy, it must be presumed to be telling the truth. From the reporting about Iraq's alleged WMD to the current spate of stories about how "dangerous" Iran is, time and again the press has reacted to official pronouncements about threats with a near total absence of skepticism. Each time the government announces the indictment of domestic terrorists allegedly plotting our demise, the press devotes itself to the story with obsessive relish, only to later note, on page A22 or in a casual aside, that the whole thing was bunk.
In August 2003, to cite just one example, the New York dailies breathlessly reported what one U.S. official called an "incredible triumph in the war against terrorism," the arrest of Hemant Lakhani, a supposed terrorist mastermind caught red-handed attempting to acquire a surface-to-air missile. Only later did the government admit that the "plot" consisted of an FBI informant begging Lakhani to find him a missile, while a Russian intelligence officer called up Lakhani and offered to sell him one.
Yet after nearly a dozen such instances, the establishment media continue to earnestly report each new alleged threat or indictment, secure in the belief that their proximity to policy-makers gets it closer to the truth. But proximity can obscure more than clarify. It's hard to imagine that the guy sitting next to you at the White House correspondents' dinner is plotting to, say, send the country into a disastrous and illegal war, or is spying on Americans in blatant defiance of federal statutes. Bob Woodward, the journalist with the most access to the Bush Administration, was just about the last one to realize that the White House is disingenuous and cynical, that it has manipulated the machinery of state for its narrow political ends.
Meanwhile, those who realized this was the White House's MO from the beginning have been labeled conspiracy theorists. During the 2004 campaign Howard Dean made the charge that the White House was manipulating the terror threat level and recycling old intelligence. The Bush campaign responded by dismissing Dean as a "bizarre conspiracy theorist." A year later, after Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge retired, he admitted that Dean's charge was, indeed, the truth. The same accusation of conspiracy-mongering was routinely leveled at anyone who suggested that the war in Iraq was and is motivated by a desire for the United States to control the world's second-largest oil reserves.
For the Administration, "conspiracy" is a tremendously useful term, and can be applied even in the most seemingly bizarre conditions to declare an inquiry or criticism out of bounds. Responding to a question from NBC's Brian Williams as to whether he ever discusses official business with his father, Bush said such a suggestion was a "kind of conspiracy theory at its most rampant." The credulous style can brook no acknowledgment of unarticulated motives to our political actors, or consultations to which the public is not privy.
The public has been presented with two worldviews, one credulous, one paranoid, and both unsatisfactory. The more the former breaks apart, the greater the appeal of the latter. Conspiracy theories that claim to explain 9/11 are wrongheaded and a terrible waste of time, but the skeptical instinct is, on balance, salutary. It is right to suspect that the operations of government, the power elite and the military-industrial complex are often not what they seem; and proper to raise questions when the answers provided have been unconvincing. Given the untruths to which American citizens have been subjected these past six years, is it any surprise that a majority of them think the government's lying about what happened before and on 9/11?
Still, the persistent appeal of paranoid theories reflects a cynicism that the credulous media have failed to address, because they posit a world of good intentions and face-value pronouncements, one in which the suggestion that a government would mislead or abuse its citizens for its own gains or the gains of its benefactors is on its face absurd. The danger is that the more this government's cynicism and deception are laid bare, the more people — on the left in particular and among the public in general — will be drawn down the rabbit hole of delusion of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
To avoid such a fate, the public must come to trust that the gatekeepers of public discourse share their skepticism about the agenda its government is pursuing. The antidote, ultimately, to the Truth Movement is a press that refuses to allow the government to continue to lie.
By Christopher Hayes
Reprinted with permission from The Nation
This article only adressed the theories and political climate, particularly around the release of "Loose Change". It does not touch on the fringe right-wing players behind the conspiracy scene or their politics, agenda or motives.
I'm reprinting in whole because I'm worried the history of sane coverage of the emerging "movement" is disappearing; already the Nation copy is gone. This can give undue credence to the meme by certain dishonest "debunkers" anyone sucked into the "Truth" movement was just randomly "nuts". It was a political fraud, every last bit of it. The only people responsible for a fraud are the people who created it and wittingly promoted it.
-------------
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-9-11-truth-movements-dangers/
The Nation December 8, 2006, 3:54 PM
The 9/11 Truth Movement's Dangers
This column was written by Christopher Hayes
According to a July poll conducted by Scripps News Service, one-third of Americans think the government either carried out the 9/11 attacks or intentionally allowed them to happen in order to provide a pretext for war in the Middle East. This is at once alarming and unsurprising. Alarming, because if tens of millions of Americans really believe their government was complicit in the murder of 3,000 of their fellow citizens, they seem remarkably sanguine about this fact. By and large, life continues as before, even though tens of millions of people apparently believe they are being governed by mass murderers. Unsurprising, because the government these Americans suspect of complicity in 9/11 has acquired a justified reputation for deception: weapons of mass destruction, secret prisons, illegal wiretapping. What else are they hiding?
This pattern of deception has not only fed diffuse public cynicism but has provided an opening for alternate theories of 9/11 to flourish. As these theories — propounded by the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement — seep toward the edges of the mainstream, they have raised the specter of the return (if it ever left) of what Richard Hofstadter famously described as "the paranoid style in American politics." But the real danger posed by the Truth Movement isn't paranoia. Rather, the danger is that it will discredit and deform the salutary skepticism Americans increasingly show toward their leaders.
The Truth Movement's recent growth can be largely attributed to the Internet-distributed documentary "Loose Change." A low-budget film produced by two 20-somethings that purports to debunk the official story of 9/11, it's been viewed over the Internet millions of times. Complementing "Loose Change" are the more highbrow offerings of a handful of writers and scholars, many of whom are associated with Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Two of these academics, retired theologian David Ray Griffin and retired Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones, have written books and articles that serve as the movement's canon. Videos of their lectures circulate among the burgeoning portions of the Internet devoted to the cause of the "truthers." A variety of groups have chapters across the country and organize conferences that draw hundreds. In the last election cycle, the website www.911truth.org even produced a questionnaire with pointed inquiries for candidates, just like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or the Sierra Club. The Truth Movement's relationship to the truth may be tenuous, but that it is a movement is no longer in doubt.
Truth activists often maintain they are simply "raising questions," and as such tend to focus with dogged persistence on physical minutiae: the lampposts near the Pentagon that should have been knocked down by Flight 77, the altitude in Pennsylvania at which cellphones on Flight 93 should have stopped working, the temperature at which jet fuel burns and at which steel melts. They then use these perceived inconsistencies to argue that the central events of 9/11 — the plane hitting the Pentagon, the towers collapsing — were not what they appeared to be. So: The eyewitness accounts of those who heard explosions in the World Trade Center, combined with the facts that jet fuel burns at 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit and steel melts at 2,500, shows that the towers were brought down by controlled explosions from inside the buildings, not by the planes crashing into them.
If the official story is wrong, then what did happen? As you might expect, there's quite a bit of dissension on this point. Like any movement, the Truth Movement is beset by internecine fights between different factions: those who subscribe to what are termed LIHOP theories (that the government "let it happen on purpose") and the more radical MIHOP ("made it happen on purpose") contingent. Even within these groups, there are divisions: Some believe the WTC was detonated with explosives after the planes hit and some don't even think there were any planes.
To the extent that there is a unified theory of the nature of the conspiracy, it is based, in part, on the precedent of the Reichstag fire in Germany in the 1930s. The idea is that just as the Nazis staged a fire in the Reichstag in order to frighten the populace and consolidate power, the Bush Administration, military contractors, oil barons and the CIA staged 9/11 so as to provide cause and latitude to pursue its imperial ambitions unfettered by dissent and criticism. But the example of the Reichstag fire itself is instructive. While during and after the war many observers, including officials of the U.S. government, suspected the fire was a Nazi plot, the consensus among historians is that it was, in fact, the product of a lone zealous anarchist. That fact changes little about the Nazi regime, or its use of the fire for its own ends. It's true the Nazis were the chief beneficiaries of the fire, but that doesn't mean they started it, and the same goes for the Bush Administration and 9/11.
The Reichstag example also holds a lesson for those who would dismiss the very notion of a conspiracy as necessarily absurd. It was perfectly reasonable to suspect the Nazis of setting the fire, so long as the evidence suggested that might have been the case. The problem isn't with conspiracy theories as such; the problem is continuing to assert the existence of a conspiracy even after the evidence shows it to be virtually impossible.
In March 2005 Popular Mechanics assembled a team of engineers, physicists, flight experts and the like to critically examine some of the Truth Movement's most common claims. They found them almost entirely without merit. To pick just one example, steel might not melt at 1,500 degrees, the temperature at which jet fuel burns, but it does begin to lose a lot of its strength, enough to cause the support beams to fail.
And yet no amount of debunking seems to work. The Internet empowers people with esoteric interests to spend all kinds of time pursuing their hobbies, and if the Truth Movement was the political equivalent of Lord of the Rings fan fiction or furries, there wouldn't be much reason to pay attention. But the public opinion trend lines are moving in the truthers' direction, even after the official 9/11 Commission report was supposed to settle the matter once and for all.
Of course, the ommission report was something of a whitewash — Bush would only be interviewed in the presence of Dick Cheney, the commission was denied access to other key witnesses, and just this year we learned of a meeting convened by George Tenet the summer before the attacks to warn Condoleezza Rice about al Qaeda's plotting, a meeting that was nowhere mentioned in the report.
So it's hard to blame people for thinking we're not getting the whole story. For six years, the government has prevaricated and the press has largely failed to point out this simple truth. Critics like The New Yorker's Nicholas Lemann might lament the resurgence of the "paranoid style," but the seeds of paranoia have taken root partly because of the complete lack of appropriate skepticism by the establishment press, a complementary impulse to the paranoid style that might be called the "credulous style."
In the credulous style all political actors are acting with good intentions and in good faith. Mistakes are made, but never because of ulterior motives or undue influence from the various locii of corporate power. When people in power advocate strenuously for a position it is because they believe in it. When their advocacy leads to policies that create misery, it is due not to any evil intentions or greed or corruption, but rather simple human error. Ahmad Chalabi summed up this worldview perfectly. Faced with the utter absence of the WMD he and his cohorts had long touted in Iraq, he replied, "We are heroes in error."
For a long time the credulous style has dominated the establishment, but its hold intensified after 9/11. When the government speaks, particularly about the Enemy, it must be presumed to be telling the truth. From the reporting about Iraq's alleged WMD to the current spate of stories about how "dangerous" Iran is, time and again the press has reacted to official pronouncements about threats with a near total absence of skepticism. Each time the government announces the indictment of domestic terrorists allegedly plotting our demise, the press devotes itself to the story with obsessive relish, only to later note, on page A22 or in a casual aside, that the whole thing was bunk.
In August 2003, to cite just one example, the New York dailies breathlessly reported what one U.S. official called an "incredible triumph in the war against terrorism," the arrest of Hemant Lakhani, a supposed terrorist mastermind caught red-handed attempting to acquire a surface-to-air missile. Only later did the government admit that the "plot" consisted of an FBI informant begging Lakhani to find him a missile, while a Russian intelligence officer called up Lakhani and offered to sell him one.
Yet after nearly a dozen such instances, the establishment media continue to earnestly report each new alleged threat or indictment, secure in the belief that their proximity to policy-makers gets it closer to the truth. But proximity can obscure more than clarify. It's hard to imagine that the guy sitting next to you at the White House correspondents' dinner is plotting to, say, send the country into a disastrous and illegal war, or is spying on Americans in blatant defiance of federal statutes. Bob Woodward, the journalist with the most access to the Bush Administration, was just about the last one to realize that the White House is disingenuous and cynical, that it has manipulated the machinery of state for its narrow political ends.
Meanwhile, those who realized this was the White House's MO from the beginning have been labeled conspiracy theorists. During the 2004 campaign Howard Dean made the charge that the White House was manipulating the terror threat level and recycling old intelligence. The Bush campaign responded by dismissing Dean as a "bizarre conspiracy theorist." A year later, after Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge retired, he admitted that Dean's charge was, indeed, the truth. The same accusation of conspiracy-mongering was routinely leveled at anyone who suggested that the war in Iraq was and is motivated by a desire for the United States to control the world's second-largest oil reserves.
For the Administration, "conspiracy" is a tremendously useful term, and can be applied even in the most seemingly bizarre conditions to declare an inquiry or criticism out of bounds. Responding to a question from NBC's Brian Williams as to whether he ever discusses official business with his father, Bush said such a suggestion was a "kind of conspiracy theory at its most rampant." The credulous style can brook no acknowledgment of unarticulated motives to our political actors, or consultations to which the public is not privy.
The public has been presented with two worldviews, one credulous, one paranoid, and both unsatisfactory. The more the former breaks apart, the greater the appeal of the latter. Conspiracy theories that claim to explain 9/11 are wrongheaded and a terrible waste of time, but the skeptical instinct is, on balance, salutary. It is right to suspect that the operations of government, the power elite and the military-industrial complex are often not what they seem; and proper to raise questions when the answers provided have been unconvincing. Given the untruths to which American citizens have been subjected these past six years, is it any surprise that a majority of them think the government's lying about what happened before and on 9/11?
Still, the persistent appeal of paranoid theories reflects a cynicism that the credulous media have failed to address, because they posit a world of good intentions and face-value pronouncements, one in which the suggestion that a government would mislead or abuse its citizens for its own gains or the gains of its benefactors is on its face absurd. The danger is that the more this government's cynicism and deception are laid bare, the more people — on the left in particular and among the public in general — will be drawn down the rabbit hole of delusion of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
To avoid such a fate, the public must come to trust that the gatekeepers of public discourse share their skepticism about the agenda its government is pursuing. The antidote, ultimately, to the Truth Movement is a press that refuses to allow the government to continue to lie.
By Christopher Hayes
Reprinted with permission from The Nation
Feb 14, 2015
Robbie Martin aka videohoax behind Dishonest Creepy Trolling
No, I'm not "exposing" Mr. Martin...he "exposed" himself.
A little back ground...
Back before I understood the 911 Truth gig was a scam, I wrote a piece published at 9/11 Blogger titled: "Heroes: The Metaphor and Evolution in 911 Activism Part 1" . The commenter "videohoax", a dishonest troll, commented very strangely. One can see the original post here, where the user link is :
http://911blogger.com/users/videohoax
Now if one goes to that URL, one will be sent to Robbie Martin's profile:
And sure enough, if one goes to the ghostpage of the blog, http://911blogger.com/node/19332 , there he is.
Comparison :
I had no idea my troll was Abby Martin's brother. Oh, yeh, it's that Robbie Martin:
So "videhoax" is a reference to the belief the Iraq beheading video is fake. And this guy thinks it's smart to play creepy games on the Internet while his sister is exploiting a mentally unwell woman to push the conspiracy theories. That looks more and more like funding for a lifestyle...
This is exploitation, pure and simple. If Martin was a real journalist, she'd have done her research on Lindauer and discovered some disturbing things:
Martin might also become aware Lindauer was unable to answer questions put to her by the Occupy community:
After three years, no response. That by itself suggests Lindauer was being "handled" or coached by one of the frauds. If she was doing this on her own, she'd have been allowed to ramble until she was banned. Her coach probably noticed this was not a community that would swallow tin foil easily.
But that's idle speculation. What isn't speculation: it's obvious that Lindauer is not credible.
I've written before I thought Abby Martin was being played by Russia Today. I'm forced to go farther and conclude Martin is not a journalist, serious or otherwise, but is a Libertarian opportunist. Bringing us to her brother, dear Robbie.
Both support Ron Paul, even years after being proven beyond a shadow of the doubt, Paul is a fringe rightwing loon who hobnobs with Nazi sympathizers and made millions publishing his racist newletters. Newsletters Lew Rockwell, another Libertarian "truther" profited from:
Yet Martin and Martin are proud "Voices of Liberty, Powered by Ron Paul":
Not hard to find. Either these two intrepid "journalists" are too incompetent to discover this on their own, or, much more likely, they know they're part of a dishonest propaganda machine connected to sleazy racist frauds.
Let's go back to dear, dear Robbie's comments on my blog and see what the point of them could be.
But seriously, Robbie aka VH seems to be trolling for discouragement by being dismissive and bitchy. Little did he know, had he simply been honest about being knowingly involved in a right-wing racist fraud, I would have fled the so called "movement" a long, long time ago.
But Robbie wanted to keep that under his hat. Not only that, but he was keenly interested in recruiting leftists to the cause.
But when he knew he was talking to a left liberal he's dismissive and bitchy? He's doing it wrong.
Of course the real reason was, by this time, those wittingly involved in the truther fraud has sussed out I would never push Ron Paul, would never let Holocaust denial slide, would never swallow any "red pills". Robbie/videohoax wasn't the first passive/aggressive "troll" trying to tell me, via a code so obscure Alan Turning would be at a loss, that I was unwelcome. As I've said before, these people have no one to blame but themselves:
Now, with Robbie's wee correction to his 911blogger account, I'm aware of yet one more fraud to add to the list. A few searches will show his sister is promoted on this website:
http://mycatbirdseat.com/2014/06/hillary-clinton-2016-a-recipe-for-endless-war/
http://mycatbirdseat.com/2014/05/traitors-in-our-government-allegiance-to-israel/
This disgusts me to no end. Of course Robbie and Abby will plead they have no control over who supports their stuff, and how unfair they're being picked on here, "guilt by association", etc. But maybe they should have thought about that before claiming to be "powered by" a racist scumbag like Ron Paul.
Mind, I would have never known that I was the focus of Robbie's attention if the owners of 911blogger had deleted my account and comments because I do not want anything I've said going to support what is now obviously a fraud. That request was made some time ago. I would never have noticed who my troll was if they had been responsive. Maybe the Martins would like a wee chat with the 911blogger owners about that....
And the owners are perfectly capable of removing blogs/comments/accounts. For instance, they've removed the only one I left live...about how Craig 'Killtown' Lazo is friends with Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul's right hand man, proving the truther fraud goes to the top of the Libertarian Party:
Showing the "never delete" policy is a lie and Keogh and Orangatan are hypocrites. I suspect it was one comment in particular they found troublesome:
Now you have to think why would anyone who is not a racist want to hide proof of racists in the 911 truth movement?
It's all good...anyone can still read that blog here:
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/2010/06/if-this-is-itpart-5-killtown-lew.html
As for Robbie Martin aka videohoax, I should feel sad for him wasting his life on this fraudulent conspiracy crap.
Then I remember he almost certainly knows it's a front to organize the fringe racist right. He is likely one of the parties behind the heavy Russian webtraffic, here and here, as his Facebook page has him actually living in Russia:
https://www.facebook.com/FluorescentGrey
In any case, it's a lesson in how not to do diplomacy. If Robbie's someone's useful idiot, he might consider dropping the gig.
Maybe the next time Robbie thinks about luring leftists into a fringe right propaganda machine just so he can try to bully them when they don't play ball, he'll think twice.
But I doubt it. The grandiose entitlement of "truther" frauds seems without end....
For more on the bankrupt toxicity of the Libertarian Party read this great article:
A little back ground...
Back before I understood the 911 Truth gig was a scam, I wrote a piece published at 9/11 Blogger titled: "Heroes: The Metaphor and Evolution in 911 Activism Part 1" . The commenter "videohoax", a dishonest troll, commented very strangely. One can see the original post here, where the user link is :
http://911blogger.com/users/videohoax
Now if one goes to that URL, one will be sent to Robbie Martin's profile:
Robbie Martin
History
- Member for
- 8 years 23 weeks
- Blog
- View recent blog entries
And sure enough, if one goes to the ghostpage of the blog, http://911blogger.com/node/19332 , there he is.
Comparison :
I had no idea my troll was Abby Martin's brother. Oh, yeh, it's that Robbie Martin:
Iraq Beheading Video Hoax Press Release - Vanderford ...
videohoax.ctyme.com/
This is the first episode of Media Roots radio with hosts Abby and Robbie Martin. First we introduce each other and explain our personal political awakenings ...
So "videhoax" is a reference to the belief the Iraq beheading video is fake. And this guy thinks it's smart to play creepy games on the Internet while his sister is exploiting a mentally unwell woman to push the conspiracy theories. That looks more and more like funding for a lifestyle...
This is exploitation, pure and simple. If Martin was a real journalist, she'd have done her research on Lindauer and discovered some disturbing things:
She was jailed for about a year but was released from custody in 2006 after another judge ruled that the government couldn't force her to be medicated for her delusions so she could stand trial.
In agreeing with the psychiatrist's finding, Preska noted the defendant once stuffed tissues into her mouth when she was admonished not to speak out during a hearing without consulting her lawyer.
Martin might also become aware Lindauer was unable to answer questions put to her by the Occupy community:
I was fulfilling the role usually handled by diplomats. I would communicate messages back and forth between U.S> Intelligence & Libya/Iraq. The Arab govts greatly appreciated my work at the U.N. against sanctions, and I was well known on the Security Council. Whether they liked my politics depended on their position on sanctions, but I was well known there. It's only the American public that was ignorant of what I had done for years.
When the CIA got warnings about 9/11, in April & May of 2001, I was ordered to deliver threats of War to Iraq's diplomats at the United Nations-- in the event that Iraq discovered intelligence about the conspiracy & failed to pass it back through my back channel. I was instructed to say the threat originated, and I quote "at the highest levels of government above the CIA Director and above the Secretary of State." That was the exact wording.
The Bush White House was already setting up Iraq. Of course Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Again, even if you're tired of 9/11, you've got to know what actually happened, so that you can understand why the War on Terror has been a public fraud to exaggerate White House & Congressional performance on national security. You can't fight back without the facts. You don't need all the details about 9/11 to do that. But you have to know that it was an act of public deception in total. The whole thing was a con job on the American public.
Thanks for the response Susan but you forgot to answer my questions.
What exactly is a back channel?
Who were you actually working for and who was paying your expenses?
How did you end up in this back channel position?
I am really curious as to how somebody could end up in such a influential position.
But that's idle speculation. What isn't speculation: it's obvious that Lindauer is not credible.
I've written before I thought Abby Martin was being played by Russia Today. I'm forced to go farther and conclude Martin is not a journalist, serious or otherwise, but is a Libertarian opportunist. Bringing us to her brother, dear Robbie.
Both support Ron Paul, even years after being proven beyond a shadow of the doubt, Paul is a fringe rightwing loon who hobnobs with Nazi sympathizers and made millions publishing his racist newletters. Newsletters Lew Rockwell, another Libertarian "truther" profited from:
In 1984, as he left Congress, Paul also set up Ron Paul & Associates (RP&A), with his wife and daughter and his former congressional chief of staff, Lew Rockwell. The next year, RP&A began publishing several publications including The Ron Paul Investment Letter, The Ron Paul Survival Report, and The Ron Paul Political Report. By 1993, RP&A was earning $940,000 per year.
Yet Martin and Martin are proud "Voices of Liberty, Powered by Ron Paul":
Robbie Martin - Voices of Liberty, Powered by Ron Paul www.voicesofliberty.com/bio/robbie-martin/This would be laughably hokey, except for the fact that Libertarian Liberty Loons are almost always pushing a hidden racist, reactionary, agenda.
Sep 9, 2014 - Robbie Martin. http://www.mediaroots.org. Co-host of Media Roots Radio with Abby Martin. Founder of RecordLabelRecords.org. Writer for ...
Not hard to find. Either these two intrepid "journalists" are too incompetent to discover this on their own, or, much more likely, they know they're part of a dishonest propaganda machine connected to sleazy racist frauds.
Let's go back to dear, dear Robbie's comments on my blog and see what the point of them could be.
i feel sorry for whoeverWell! I never!
i feel sorry for whoever read that rant!Submitted by videohoax on Tue, 02/10/2009 - 11:48am
But seriously, Robbie aka VH seems to be trolling for discouragement by being dismissive and bitchy. Little did he know, had he simply been honest about being knowingly involved in a right-wing racist fraud, I would have fled the so called "movement" a long, long time ago.
But Robbie wanted to keep that under his hat. Not only that, but he was keenly interested in recruiting leftists to the cause.
i think with the right
i think with the right marketing push and distribution chain this film could get just as popular as some of the recent liberal/left leaning documentaries like Freedom to Facism, Why we Fight, and Who killed the electric car. I wonder what the disinformation people are doing beyond these initial screenings. I firmly believe we could see something like this at sundance or even cannes
thoughts?videohoax on Fri, 09/08/2006 - 5:53pm.
But when he knew he was talking to a left liberal he's dismissive and bitchy? He's doing it wrong.
Of course the real reason was, by this time, those wittingly involved in the truther fraud has sussed out I would never push Ron Paul, would never let Holocaust denial slide, would never swallow any "red pills". Robbie/videohoax wasn't the first passive/aggressive "troll" trying to tell me, via a code so obscure Alan Turning would be at a loss, that I was unwelcome. As I've said before, these people have no one to blame but themselves:
The problem with using left political rhetoric, slogans and ideas is, um...well, the obvious: they set themselves up to get leftists interested in what they had to say. And if they set up their con well(and for several years they did), those leftists are going to get involved and expect them to walk the lefty anti-racist talk. And they'll be very unhappy when the movement "leaders" refuse to denounce, and kick out the racists(Barrett, Fetzer, Bollyn, Thorn, Dice, Tarpley, etc, ad nausum).
Someone didn't think that one through.
Now, with Robbie's wee correction to his 911blogger account, I'm aware of yet one more fraud to add to the list. A few searches will show his sister is promoted on this website:
http://mycatbirdseat.com/2014/06/hillary-clinton-2016-a-recipe-for-endless-war/
On the same website, Merlin Miller is a contributor:
Abby Martin calls out former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton over her lucrative speaking tour in the run up to the 2016 presidential elections as well as outlining the former first lady’s corporate ties
http://mycatbirdseat.com/2014/05/traitors-in-our-government-allegiance-to-israel/
Merlin Miller is a racist with direct ties to the White Supremacist American Freedom Party.Traitors in our Government Allegiance to Israel
There's a fifth column in America. A Trojan Horse within our laws, composed of dual citizens and foreign nationals.
This disgusts me to no end. Of course Robbie and Abby will plead they have no control over who supports their stuff, and how unfair they're being picked on here, "guilt by association", etc. But maybe they should have thought about that before claiming to be "powered by" a racist scumbag like Ron Paul.
Mind, I would have never known that I was the focus of Robbie's attention if the owners of 911blogger had deleted my account and comments because I do not want anything I've said going to support what is now obviously a fraud. That request was made some time ago. I would never have noticed who my troll was if they had been responsive. Maybe the Martins would like a wee chat with the 911blogger owners about that....
And the owners are perfectly capable of removing blogs/comments/accounts. For instance, they've removed the only one I left live...about how Craig 'Killtown' Lazo is friends with Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul's right hand man, proving the truther fraud goes to the top of the Libertarian Party:
If this is it....Part 5- “Killtown”, Lew Rockwell and the Ludwig von Mises Institute
Access denied. You may need to login below or register to access this page.
Access Denied / User Login
Showing the "never delete" policy is a lie and Keogh and Orangatan are hypocrites. I suspect it was one comment in particular they found troublesome:
Possibly the most important message in this blog--
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/26/ron-paul-95-percent-of-black-men-are...
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
“But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.”
“To understand Paul’s philosophy, the best place to start is probably the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Auburn, Alabama. The institute is named for a libertarian Austrian economist, but it was founded by a man named Lew Rockwell, who also served as Paul’s congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982.”
“The politics of the organization are complicated--its philosophy derives largely from the work of the late Murray Rothbard, a Bronx-born son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and a self-described “anarcho-capitalist” who viewed the state as nothing more than “a criminal gang”--but one aspect of the institute’s worldview stands out as particularly disturbing: its attachment to the Confederacy.”
And
Now I must regretfully caution all 9/11 truth activists of African descent, or who identify as African descent or who LOOK LIKE they could be of African descent: there are bono fide racists(er, supporters of “the Confederacy”) operating in 9/11 truth and we know how dangerous racists can be. Under no circumstances let anyone manipulate you into surrendering your anonymity unless it is your informed decision.http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/2010/06/if-this-is-itpart-5-killtown-...Submitted by Col. Jenny Sparks on Wed, 06/02/2010 - 5:29pm.
Now you have to think why would anyone who is not a racist want to hide proof of racists in the 911 truth movement?
It's all good...anyone can still read that blog here:
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/2010/06/if-this-is-itpart-5-killtown-lew.html
As for Robbie Martin aka videohoax, I should feel sad for him wasting his life on this fraudulent conspiracy crap.
Then I remember he almost certainly knows it's a front to organize the fringe racist right. He is likely one of the parties behind the heavy Russian webtraffic, here and here, as his Facebook page has him actually living in Russia:
https://www.facebook.com/FluorescentGrey
- Podcast & Video Producer, Writer at Media Roots1953 to present
In any case, it's a lesson in how not to do diplomacy. If Robbie's someone's useful idiot, he might consider dropping the gig.
Maybe the next time Robbie thinks about luring leftists into a fringe right propaganda machine just so he can try to bully them when they don't play ball, he'll think twice.
But I doubt it. The grandiose entitlement of "truther" frauds seems without end....
For more on the bankrupt toxicity of the Libertarian Party read this great article:
What's wrong with libertarianism
Feb 11, 2015
Cindy Sheehan: the Canary in the Truther Coal Mine
I wrote about Ms. Sheehan last year, specifically about her dubious credentials as a "liberal anti war activist and her questionable alliances and support from racists. There is much sadness and disappointment in discovering this antiwar icon is probably a fraud. But, as Sheehan was preparing for a bid for governor, it could be useful in taking the "truther" temperature in politics:
I'm calling it: whatever the turnout is, it will be used as "proof" of a silent majority.
Variation: if Sheehan doesn't even run a real campaign, the turnout will be used as "proof" of a vast grassroots effort. Actually all that proves is these lying, scammy, closet racists use private email lists and internet boards to organize.
Little did I realize as I wrote those words how late to the party I was. In California politics only the top two winners of the primary go on to election day. My blog was written in mid September and Sheehan had already lost the primary in June.
Whoops, my bad.
That said, looking at the raw numbers is still instructive. Because Sheehan did run a real campaign, or as real as one gets promoted on fringe conspiracy social media. And even with the sheeple out if force, she only got 1.2 percent of the vote, with 52,707 votes in the primary.
http://ballotpedia.org/California_gubernatorial_election,_2014
While over fifty thousand people willing to follow Sheehan over a cliff into a sea of koolaid is nothing to sneeze at, it's also, in pure numbers, down from past candidates for the Peace and Freedom party. Their last candidate in 2010 had 92,637 votes; the candidate before that, 69,934. The only candidate to get less total votes was in 1982.
This could be as simple as the Peace and Freedom Party was a terrible fit for Sheehan. Or maybe Sheehan's regular base was turned off by the obvious leftist branding. In theory, leaders like Kelso might hold their noses and vote knowing they were using the leftist network to undermine it(or that's the plan), but rank and file racist sympathizers in the conspiracy community will have no faith in such a strategy. This seems less a "roll call" and more an experiment, one that seems to have failed.
Why did the Peace and Freedom Party endorse Sheehan in the first place? It's surprising members wouldn't object, but then her Wikipedia page was cleaned up. There used to be a page about criticism and support, that can be found in wayback, but it was deleted. Granted most critics were from the right, but that's doesn't automatically make them incorrect. The rational was this material should be incorporated in to her main page, but little of it has. Her references to 9/11 have definitely been removed, such as this one:
In March 2005, James Morris sent an e-mail to ABC's Nightline allegedly written by Sheehan that included the statements that the 9/11 attacks occurred because "Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy" and that Casey Sheehan "was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel" and had "joined the Army to protect America, not Israel." Sheehan denies the allegations: "I've never said that... Those aren't even words that I would say. I do believe that the Palestinian issue is a hot issue that needs to be solved, and it needs to be more fair and equitable, but I never said my son died for Israel." She claims that Morris modified the email to support his own personal agenda. Morris denies altering the email before sending it along to Nightline[16] on Sheehan's behalf (per her request for him to do so). Two other individuals, Tony Tersch and Skeeter Gallagher, received a copy of Sheehan's email directly from her; both claim that the e-mail they received is consistent with Morris' story. Tersch posted the email[17] he received to the "bullyard" Google group.
It can still be read in wayback.
More direct statements on her page about the "truth" movement go back to July 2007:
9/11 Truth Movement
In an interview with Alex Jones, she supported the 9/11 truth movement and said that she agrees that the falling of the twin towers represented a controlled demolition. She also mentioned the Jersey Girls as well as a new independent 9/11 investigation. [70].
( mp3 link )
Expanded on in September 2007:
9/11 conspiracy theories
In an interview with Alex Jones, Sheehan supported the Jersey Girls' call for a new investigation into the Bush administration's response to 9/11, and said with regard to the controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center that "I'm not an expert and I haven't had time to research it, but it does to me look like a controlled demolition, from a very amateur eye." Noting that some "high profile" people "think 911 was an inside job," Sheenan said that "there's just a lot of very questionable things." [74]
This information was available until early August of 2008, after which it disappeared from her page. The mp3 link is very instructive for anyone with 20/20 vision to see how she was working fringe talking points while still plausibly putting up a front as an anti war leftist.
Clearly there was an attempt to clean up her image before going on the politics road show in late 2008. People only familiar with Sheehan anti war work will have no idea, from simply reading her Wikipedia page, how involved she is with fringe politics. Maybe the Peace and Freedom Party didn't either, though someone should have done the research. For instance, before you have someone run for your party, maybe you should check if they're calling well reported news "fake":
Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan wrote her supporters, “I am sorry, but if you believe the newest death of OBL, you’re stupid. Just think to yourself—they paraded Saddam’s dead sons around to prove they were dead—why do you suppose they hastily buried this version of OBL at sea? This lying, murderous Empire can only exist with your brainwashed consent—just put your flags away and THINK!”Well, I'd respond with, "I'm sorry, but f you believe this woman who has been caught lying numerous times and lets racists take photo ops with her is still a real progressive anti war activist, you're stupid."
Makes us all even, eh?
Few people are talking about Sheehan now. Her so called soap box is in splinters. The 52,707 votes Sheehan garnered is less of a sign of a silent grass roots movement and more an indicator the entire "truther" gig is on life support. Remember, Sheehan started off on the anti war left. Then she almost deliberately acted out in a way that gave her the flexibility to be more tolerant of the fringe right, until she claims to be not left or right, a common Libertarian rhetorical device to hide an extremist right politics.
Now, even among her fans, support is dwindling. The fact is 9/11 truth as always meant to be a racist front by the "leaders". Leftist were only tolerated in so much as they could be a shield for the racist propaganda ala Alibi Jews, except they were completely unaware of their role. (Real albi Jews appear to be classic opportunists who know what they are doing, see David Cole). The only other thing Movement "leaders" want out of leftists is faithful parrots and to recruit new sheeple. People like Sheehan were a useful rallying point to managed to duped leftists. So what happens to Sheehan when the leftists drift away or, worse, see the "truther" con for what it is? Sheehan's voting base goes kaput.
Sheehan's use for the "truth" movement is over. She's burnt her bridges with the Democratic Party and other left antiwar groups. I certainly hope she's saved or invested any donations she's received, because she's going to need it. I could almost feel sorry for her, being completely dependent on the good will of fringe political vultures as she ages. But she still has time to turn it around. That she chooses not to is sad.
But worse than Sheehan's personal prospects are what's left of the "Movement"s prospects. These people would never have gotten the fraud off the ground without the help of real leftists and anti-war activists. "Loose Change" appealed to young anti war activists. The Bush administration’s incompetence and the luke warm media didn't help. But it was the pool of disafected antiwar protesters that the frauds exploited to build the so called "truth movement". Without it, they are dead in the water. Sheehan was one of the tools to organize the lefty truthers.
As Sheehan fades, the Truth Movement fades with her. And like canaries in the old coal mines, any remaining "lefty" truthers should get out. Once Sheehan's gone, you know it's over.
Only Libertarian sympathetic websites like Daily Caller and Breitbart gives her virtual airtime.
One of which has this obnoxious popup:
Do your part to DEFEND AMERICA.
Sign the petition below to show you support defunding President Obama's executive amnesty.
First it's racists, then it's xenophobes. At least they're out in the open now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)