Well, MSM didn't waste anytime making this part of the record.

If Alex Jones' "prediction" fails to materialize, he will look like a certifiable NUT.

They will then remind everyone that he is the de facto "leader" of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

I think Alex goes too far sometimes. He should stick to what we can proove. This is bigger then him and his "predictions".

Actually, if this prevents them from going on with the next false flag it is a huge success.

On the other hand if something does happen............?

This has to be good. Let's sometimes be happy when the MSM get their face in the feeding trough!

Would you rather see thousands of people die again just not to make Alex Jones look like a fool ?

is this for real?

If this helps prevent a false-flag operation, this is good.

Does the TV host have a habit of coughing, or did he pretend to be "coughing" here?

Would you rather see thousands of people die again just not to make Alex Jones look like a fool ?
Arno Nym | 08.15.06 - 8:40 am |

***

Of course not. But your question illustrates how this is a no win situation for us.

We (the 9/11 Truth Movement) are gaining great momentum by sticking to the facts we can prove.

Once we start delving off into the realm of the unprovable (i.e., predicting the future), then we give our detractors more amunition to brand us as "wacky conspiracy theorists".

Why risk the credibility of the movement by trying to predict the future? I just don't see how this helps us.

Jason Bermas will be on at 7am on the Charles Goyette show.

http://www.1100kfnx.com/goyette.php

Weekday mornings from 6- 9 am on 50,000 watt Phoenix station KFNX News Talk Radio 1100.

The call-in numbers for the program are 602-277-KFNX; thatÂ’s 602-277-5369. Listeners in our growing audience across the country can be a part of the program toll-free by calling 1-866-536-1100.

Vesa,

The "cough" was a not-to-subtle cue to the Fox viewers. Tantamount to saying, "you heard right folks, see how crazy these nut jobs are? Neo-fascist bloodsuckers... indeed."

It's called mocking us.

His cough was suspicious.

I agree with the idea that if this helps prevent a possible false flag operation, then it is worth "taking the heat" so to speak.

The only difference I see between this prediction and the last is that previously Alex Jones was much more precise - defining the target and the scapegoat. This time it's just a "blanket alert" I guess.

In any case, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a suspicious terror attack would serve the interests of those in power.

On another note, it has been said that the extreme right and extreme left come full circle at times and find common ground. In this case, if you qualify the debate as "right-left," both sides are trying to instill fear, whether it is through terror alerts, or through these predictions based on what we know about 9-11.

The only thing to fear is fear itself.

For an outsider like me, it looks a bit "funny" how short the "news segments" are over there. This one consisted of the news anchor saying a total of two sentences.

Is what for real, kirk?
truthsearching2006 | 08.15.06 - 9:09 am | #

fox news reporting this

Screw him, let him cough, we know the Truth. The willfully ignorant will be exposed soon enough.

is the next version of 911blogger.com gonna be Internet Explorer friendly? i always have HUGE friggin blank spots when viewing this page.

If you have a digg account (highly recommended), you should add user 911truth (it's not me) to your friends list. Check his dugg stories here:

http://digg.com/users/911truth/dugg

Digg his stories.

Olbermann Exposes Nexus Of Politics And Terror
Details ten clear examples where Bush admin. alerts preceded by damaging revelations

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | August 15 2006

During a prime time segment on his MSNBC show last night, anchor Keith Olbermann presented ten clear examples where the Bush administration had issued terror alerts days after politically damaging revelations and questioned the credibility of each of the alleged plots' authenticity in light of astounding evidence to the contrary.

Olbermann overwhelmingly documents the staged timing of terror alerts spanning back four years and ends by scrutinizing the latest alleged liquid bomb plot - an operation infiltrated and surveilled for months by intelligence agencies, yet announced to the public on a carefully scripted pre-arranged schedule.

The alleged foiling of the terror plot was announced days after darling of the Neo-Fascists Joe Lieberman was defeated in the Connecticut Senatorial election by anti-war opponent Ned Lamont. Hours afterwards, drooling feverish Neo-Con cheerleaders tried to smear Lamont as "the Al-Qaeda candidate."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/150806thenexus.htm

Olbermann does it again. i dont know why he hasnt touched 9/11, you can tell he doesnt buy the whole premise of the "war on terror" like most talking heads.

Yes, FOX news apparently reported on it.

Chris, your concerns are good. I've made up my own mind though to let everyone do their part. I am the only one reponsible for me. When I look back, I want to know that the steps I took were appropriate for
me and my role in helping focus public attention on the absurdity of the OV of 9/11.

We all have our talents and personalities. Even if we feel that others are not doing it "our way" or we feel that they are "jeopardizing public perception", we are still left with the actions we should be taking.

Alex Jones borders on the fringe as far as showmanship goes but he continues to catapult 9/11 into the mainstream that might not be done by someone not as "boisterous". I sense Alex is a good guy even though I would not classify myself as a conservative.

Note the sarcastic Fox caption, "Conspiracy Alert!"

I'm surpised they didn't run a Twilight Zone audio track underneath this "alert". You can bet Hannity will be all over it though.

All I'm saying is, we've got them on the run. Clearly they are scared. Now is no time to be shooting ourselves in the foot. Alex holds a position of clear leadership, which he has earned by the way. But with leadership comes great responsiblity.

It's one thing to give a level headed warning based on clearly observable signs. It's another thing to launch off into a wildly speculative rant laced with hateful invective.

When we do that, we are playing right into there hands. It makes it more difficult to win rational people over to our way of thinking.

Obviously I hope Alex is wrong. But I don't want his being wrong to be used as ammunition to cast dispersion over the entire 9/11 Truth Movement. Especially with a major election right around the corner. That is my concern.

Well now that Fox reported Alex's warning, perhaps Alex can be a guest on some of their shows to discuss more of his 9/11 research!

Jim Fetzer on Jerry Springer Show on airamericaradio.com

Rose, how is 1 of Alex's predictions not occurring going to erase his years of amazing 9/11 truth? This prediction could just be a tactical move by Alex, as well.

This is just speculation, some might call it paranoid delusion, but I wonder if Fox News' broadcasting of this false flag alert by Alex Jones is a message from one group of behind-the-scenes powerful people (group A) to a smaller group of behind-the-scenes powerful people (group B) that you will not "create your own reality" again a la 9/11.

Far, far fewer people were complicit in allowing/assisting/making 9/11 happen (group B) than were complicit in the ensuing cover-up (group A). Group A was perhaps as surprised by 9/11 as the rest of us but immediately (or somewhat later) knew it was a false-flag. Some members of group A were maybe even unwittingly members of group B due to deft compartmentalization by the head honchos in group B. But in whichever group they primarily fit, it was in all of their interests to cover up what really happened so as to protect the system as a whole. That's what gatekeepers do, right?

I consider this possible scenario while recalling a comment I saw on another recent thread on this blog, "Lately I keep asking myself, what if everything is going as planned?" I have found myself wondering the same thing for some time. When I consider possibilities in the context of the answer to that question being, "Yes", this is what I fear as a worst case (aside from nuclear war or an open police state and prison camps): Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others, or some combination thereof will be sacrificed because under this administration's "leadership" the house of cards they are all (groups A&B) trying to maintain is perilously close to collapsing. The powers that be are preparing to swing the pendulum back to "the left" (Diebold machines don't just automatically vote Republican you know, they have to be programmed/hacked), giving the House and/or Senate to the Democrats. There may be impeachments or resignations. The Democrats will finally come through on their promise for "universal health care," complete with RFID chips or biometric records for everyone. Or maybe they'll just attach it to the coming National ID card. In any case, it's another step that, if they can fit it in, will make the open police state that much easier to manage.

Or maybe I'm just nuts. I obviously have too much time on my hands.

I think it's a preventative move by Alex, to try to hold the NeoCon animals in check from pulling another 9/11.

Fetzer on Springer? Do tell?

Yes! Jim is on now!!!

www.americaradio.com

Anonymous wrote:

This is just speculation, some might call it paranoid delusion, but I wonder if Fox News' broadcasting of this false flag alert by Alex Jones is a message from one group of behind-the-scenes powerful people (group A) to a smaller group of behind-the-scenes powerful people (group B) that you will not "create your own reality" again a la 9/11.

Far, far fewer people were complicit in allowing/assisting/making 9/11 happen (group B) than were complicit in the ensuing cover-up (group A). Group A was perhaps as surprised by 9/11 as the rest of us but immediately (or somewhat later) knew it was a false-flag. Some members of group A were maybe even unwittingly members of group B due to deft compartmentalization by the head honchos in group B. But in whichever group they primarily fit, it was in all of their interests to cover up what really happened so as to protect the system as a whole. That's what gatekeepers do, right?

This is a subject about which Webster Tarpley and Ralph Schoenman both frequently speculate- and I do believe there's a plausible case to be made that there are, in fact, conflicts between factions within the Ruling Elite.

Tarpley and Schoenman both, in their particular vernaculars, speak of a major struggle between two very powerful and entrenched parties.

Dick Cheney and the NeoCon contingent embrace an imperialistic foreign policy framework and serve the interests of Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex and Israel.

The more pragmatic bloc counts among its adherents figures like James Baker III, George Bush the Elder, Zbigniew Brzezinski and major figures in the banking establishment.

Both groups are purposed towards a restructured World Order- so, as Schoenman often notes, there isn't any good guy. But of the two groups, the Neocons are the more immediately dangerous to Americans- because they are willing to destroy the dollar, bankrupt the Treasury, and make America the object of worldwide scorn with their reckless military adventures.

The old-money Elite can and does seem to support false flag terrorism against the State. Brzezinski seemed to be inviting such an attack with "The Grand Chessboard". But they do not believe in destabilizing the entire order and potentially bringing America into a third World War- and it appears that their consternation about the seemingly inevitable drift towards such a conflict is leading many of them to attempt to undermine the Neocons in a variety of novel, subtle ways.

It may be that the Banking Elite would not terribly mind if 9/11 Truth prevailed- at least in a limited sense. It would result in an absolute purge of the Neocon elite from power- for a generation or longer.

One can only wonder how President Bush fits into this conflict- his father on one team, his mentor/boss Cheney on the other. Schoenman has made particular sport exploring this very tension in his radio show Taking Aim.

Here's a directory with all kind of Kevin Barret support correspondence.

http://www.putnampit.com/shorewoodvillage/Barrett/directory.htm

They got Alex good.

Yes, interesting site: http://www.shorewoodvillage.com/

This thing is playing out just the way the Elite planned. You mark my words, LIHOP will win out. Everyone will be so happy with our so-called victory. They may even stage public executions just like at the end of WW2.
maddog | Homepage | 08.15.06 - 12:12 pm | #
thats what im afraid of, that LIHOP will win out, Bush,Cheney,Rummy,Myers,Goss etc., all the visible culprits in the government will go down, and the general public will be satisfied. of course, we all know that means the end of one puppet regime and not the end of the criminals that really run things.there should be no toleration of "they let it happen". somebody made this happen, and it sure wasnt Osama and the cavemen.so Anymoose is correct, "they" still control things. but if "they" had it thier way, not even LIHOP would be tolerated. we are forcing "thier" hand. i have a tiny bit of hope still.

Interestingly, as much as everyone loves to hate Chomsky around here, this is basically what he said during an email exchange I had with him.

"Suppose you're right...just line up a few thugs in front of a firing squad and it's back to our noble, free market democracy".

In other words, a new faction of the elite will just assume control. Even more interestingly, this indeed appears to be what many involved in the 911 truth movement want; except instead of the word "democracy" we have "republic".

Joe, that doesnt mean those factions involved shouldnt be lined up accordingly. Chomsky doesnt care. we do. that doesnt mean we stop with the current faction, but you have to start somewhere. Chomsky would rather not start at all. once again, its "not worth" going there for him.

and speaking for myself, i dont hate Chomsky, im just frustrated with him. not just ignoring 9/11, that would be bad enough, but going out of his way to malign it, to tell his cult like followers that its "hopelessly implausible",that its just an internet theory that couldnt possibly have any merit. thats disrespectful to anyone involved in this movement, or whatever you want to call 9/11 activism.

I agree that Chomsky has been needlessy disrespectful toward the 911 movement, even calling it an "industry" at one point, point most of his comments were made before the bulk of the evidence came out. He probably honestly believed it was "hopelessly implausible" at the time, and I highly doubt he would use the same language speaking about it today.

I don't think he has "cult-like" followers. I, for one, respect his work and appreciate it, but I disagree with him on many issues and make no bones about it.

And I think he does raise an interesing point: "restoring the republic", and perhaps abolishing the Fed and banning secret socieities, will hardly eliminate the sort of structure of power that gave rise to 911 and the other atrocities before and after it. The same institutional hierarchies will be in place, allowing the scum to rise to the top and control our lives in the same manner. Eventually, we'll be right back where we started.

Anyway, appologies for inserting Chomsky's name in yet another thread. Let's just drop it and move on.

This is fantastic to see. We may have just stopped the next terror attack right here.

As I see we can't lose now. If a false flag attack happens then Alex Jones will be prophetic and more people will listen to him.
If, on the other hand, no false flag attacks happens now just when the Neo-Cons need it the most then we will have better chances bringing out the 9/11 truth on the next anniversary and in the upcoming elections.

Jon:

"A constitutional republic, with a tradition of democracy." I admit to wanting this.

Do you think this is misguided, or an appropriate dream to reach for?

I want an honest democracy (hand-counted paper ballots) for gauging the will of the people, balanced against a constitutional republic ("of laws, not men") which Franklin dared us to keep.

Thought?

That was for "Joe" rather. Jon too if you like.

"Do you think this is misguided, or an appropriate dream to reach for?"

I guess we all have to come to that conclusion ourselves. I for one do think it is misguided, for the simple reason that politicians cannot be expected to cast aside their class interests, except perhaps during voting campaigns. This was also true for the men who drafted the US Constitution which, although a massive step up from monarchy, was still based on the premise that the rich or "the the minority of the opulent" (as its prime architecht, James Madison wrote) should govern the "bewildered herd". Ironically, the only reason the "herd" tends to be "bewildered" is because the elite make sure of it through the "education" system and other forms of propaganda.

I do not feel that the American system, or any statist system for that matter, is an advisable way for human beings to govern themselves and all of history agrees with me.

Indeed, people should not assume that anti-constitutionalism was born with George Bush; the sedition act of 1917 was far worse, and Thomas Jefferson talked about the need to punish people who were traitors "in thought but not in deed".

Law has never been effective at preventing the real crimes from the men at the top, the men who actually draft the laws to begin with.

Custom, on the other hand, is an excellent way of insuring not only good behavior but freedom from the tyrannical systems of state.

If you study anthropology you find that virtually all hunter-gather socieites were/are based around concepts such as egalitarianism, cooperation, anti-hierarchy, public ownership or most resources (apart from personal property), relative sexual equality and peace.

This is how we lived for 99.9% of our time on this planet. The state is an abberation based on the notion of institutional hierarchy born of vast disparities in wealth, quite apart from hierarchy arising from natural talent, which is in any case variable or shifting, and does not produce class distinction. the same is true of Chimpanzee society.

Of course, this is only possible in smaller, decentralized communities, which can be federated along the lines of the Iroquois or the Spanish in revolutionary Spain. Politicians could be replaced by delegates immediately answerable to their citizens, and "government" become just another part of industry.

There are many, many examples of these sorts of societies throughout history; typically they are destroyed "from without", that is, from the war machines of state capitalist nations.

How this can be overcome is a far trickier matter, but it is certainly possible, and I think we should not be pursuing or praising any form of centralized power or minority rule, be they communist, fascist or "liberal democracy" such as the United States. "Balancing the powers" is a recipe for disaster. Why? Becuase "the powers" have completely different interests than the mass of humanity.

Statist systems simply don't work, and what's more, they're a direct threat to the survival of the human race. I feel that we should try to devolve power as much as possible; the more educated the populace becomes, the more reponsibilities they take on, the more stable and sane our society will be.

Wow, YouTube is STILL down. And they now changed their official reason from "putting out some new features" to "OK. We admit it. We're fixing stuff, but we'll be up soon." Weird. This is the worst possible timing.

Someone mentioned "Actually, I wouldn't put it past some NSA hackers trying to disrupt the awakening process, acting on orders from higher up in the chain of command..."

Great reply, Joe. Thanks.

I'm reading it again. ITMT, have a look at this flash and tell me what you think... (I like it better full screen and with the sound off. I do not pass judgment on the host site).

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html

Joe:

http://bastiat.org

Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850) is an old horse I like to trot out whenever I see the chance. In his paper, "The Law", he makes absurdist arguments in order to highlight is points.

Again, I don't know how it all fits together yet... but something in what he says strikes harmonic cords within me. Your thoughts, and/or anyone else, are always graciously welcome.

YouTube is back online! Feel free to join the heated discussion on Digg!

http://digg.com/politics/Criminal_elements_of_the_U_S_gov_t_to_be_stagin...

This is a good thing. Let Jones take the fall for sake of the world. History will heap glorious praise upon him.

Alex isn't going to take a fall. Bush & the neocons are going to spend the rest of their lives in prison where they belong.

The main mark of modern governments is that we do not know who governs, DE FACTO any more than DE JURE. We see the politician and not his backer; still less the backer of the backer; or, what is most important of all, the BANKER of the backer. Throned above all, in a manner without parallel in all the past, is the veiled prophet of finance, swaying all men living by a sort of magic.
-- G. K. Chesterton

Chesterton has it right,the need to find out who is putting the money up for these operations.It could shed the light on why these elites influence governments the way they do.
There is a former officer in the state department (21 years of service),Sam Karmilowicz,who,while working as an Assistant Regional Security Officer at the U.S. Embassy in Manilla,came into a possible terrorist plot to blow up airplanes. John Negroponte was the ambassador at the time,but is now Director of National Intelligence.
This is a report in the Counterpunch newsletter which implicates Dietrich Snell. Read the full article here

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03092006.html

Sent an E-Mail to him asking if He would consider joining the 9/11 movement.

Hello Erin,

I read some of the article in question – not all of it – and I can give you my opinion if you wish.

To take a quote at random:

“As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose — that it may violate property instead of protecting it”.

This is essentially an oxymoron, since protecting property – or at least certain kinds of property – necessarily entails the violation of other people’s property. It all depends on how you define what’s “mine” and what’s “your’s”; for example, a particular forest may “belong” to a particular corporation or it may “belong” to the people who happen to live in the vicinity. To answer the question, we look to the law.

Typically, in fact almost universally, the law designates the former as “just” ownership and the latter as spurious. This is based on, for instance, inheritance rights, or perhaps the right of an employer to fleece his workers, which in turn accrues capital to said employer at the expense of everyone else. The “right” of an employer to siphon off the fruits of other people’s labor violates the “right” of employees to keep the fruits of their labor. This is essentially legalized theft, although you won’t find many Christians – at least in the United States – complaining that capitalism is contrary to the Ten Commandments.

The author is correct, however, that law is based around property rights. The primary states were all born via conquest and theft, which afterwards were made legal – and thus was born law. Law was created to legitimatize hierarchical systems born of plunder and murder.

"Originally the word property was synonymous with proper or individual possession. It designated each individual's special right to the use of a thing. But when this right of use . . . became active and paramount -- that is, when the usufructuary converted his right to personally use the thing into the right to use it by his neighbour's labour -- then property changed its nature and this idea became complex." [Proudhon]

The author talks a lot about “socialism”, unfortunately that word has lost all meaning, sorta like property. Being associated with the Soviet Union, Communist China and so on, the word socialism is now used to describe state ownership, which is quite different – one might say antithetical – to the “common ownership” of , say, 15th C European peasants.

That’s actually a pretty good example – peasants, land, and law. Take the Enclosure moments.

“By being able to "legally" bar people from "their" property, the landlord class used the land monopoly to ensure the creation of a class of people with nothing to sell but their labour (i.e. liberty). Land was taken from those who traditionally used it, violating common rights, and it was used by the landlord to produce for their own profit (more recently, a similar process has been going on in the Third World as well). Personal occupancy was replaced by landlordism and agricultural wage slavery, and so "the Enclosure Acts . . . reduced the agricultural population to misery, placed them at the mercy of the landowners, and forced a great number of them to migrate to the towns where, as proletarians, they were delivered to the mercy of the middle-class manufacturers." [Peter Kropotkin, The Great French Revolution, vol. 1, pp. 117-8]

A variation of this process took place in countries like America, where the state took over ownership of vast tracks of land and then sold it to farmers. As Howard Zinn notes, the Homestead Act "gave 160 acres of western land, unoccupied and publicly owned, to anyone who would cultivate it for fives years. Anyone willing to pay $1.25 an acre could buy a homestead. Few ordinary people had the $200 necessary to do this; speculators moved in and bought up much of the land." [A People's History of the United States, p. 233]

Right-libertarians don’t talk about this kind of stuff, however: property “rights” just ARE (see Rand A=A).

Unlike property “rights”, there is at least the pretense of an historical record with respect law, but it is mostly mythology. Bob Black sums it up quite nicely:

“Constitutionalists revere the Magna Carta, but if they were to read it, they'd be baffled. Expecting to find, as libertarian Constitutionalist Ken Krawchuk says, "many of the rights we still enjoy today," they'd find themselves adrift in an alien, feudal world of "aids," "wardship," "scutage," "knight service," "reliefs," "wainage," "castle guard," "socage," "burgage," and other arcana even medievalists toil to comprehend.

Magna Carta -- extorted from King John by a few dozen rebellious barons in 1215, a dead letter within three months, voided by England's feudal overlord, the Pope -- did almost nothing for almost all of England's two million people. It confirmed or created privileges for churchmen and barons, occasionally for knights, and in only two instances for "free men." Most Englishmen were villeins, not freemen. And as historian Sidney Painter has written, "Whenever provisions of the Charter seem to benefit the ordinary man, a close examination will show that it is his lord's pocketbook that is the real cause of concern." It was only a question of who would do the fleecing.”

“…Constitutionalism combines the worst features of superstition and reality without the attractions of either. Like real law, it's dull as dirt; unlike real law, it doesn't work. Like superstition, it's silly, self-contradictory, obscurantist and ineffectual; but it entirely lacks the poetry and pageantry which often enliven myth and faith. Very few people espouse belief-systems as complicated and crackpot as Constitutionalism without being brought up in them, which has hitherto been the fate of only an unfortunate few -- very unfortunate but happily very few.” (Black, White Man’s Ghost Dance)

The idea of public ownership of anything scares the hell of Americans, who have visions of people coming to take ownership of their tooth brushes and cars on behalf of the state, but it’s worth noting, again, that public ownership of resources (as opposed to state ownership) is the only organizational system that has proved viable as a means of preventing the “strong man”. This makes sense – power is vested at the bottom of society, rather than the top, so people who want to dominate their fellows have to go up against a wall, rather than already sitting atop it.

Once again, I’m not talking about possession – the things that you own and have accrued through your labor. Indeed, one could argue that libertarians actually OPPOSE property rights, since they place the property rights of rich people far and above those of the rest of society. Supporting wage-slavery, also, is a system of perpetual property theft on a massive scale.

Since we’re talking of the French Revolution – I’m not much of a fan of writers from that era, but Varlet made a good point:

“One truth is weIl demonstrated: Man by his very nature, full of arrogance in the higher positions, inclines necessarily toward despotism; we sense now that we must hold in arrest, in check, the established authorities; without which they become all-oppressive in power. Let us not seek to counterbalance them byeach other; all counterweight which is not that of the people itself is false. The Sovereign ought always to direct the social body; it is worth nothing when someone else represents it.[51]

ThereÂ’s a bridge between right and left-libertarian theory in the form of Proudhon.

Where shall we find a power capable of counter-balancing the... State? There is none other than property... The absolute right of the State is in conflict with the absolute right of the property owner. Property is the greatest revolutionary force which exists.[29]

“Proudhon was in favor of private ownership of small-scale property. He opposed individual ownership of large industries because workers would lose their rights and ownership. Property was essential to building a strong democracy and the only way to do this on the large-scale was through co-operative associations.

...the more ground the principles of democracy have gained, the more I have seen the working classes interpret these principles favorably to individual ownership.[30]
[Mutualism] ...will make capital and the State subordinate to labor.[31]

However, anarcho-capitalism as it stands, not to be confused with mutualism, is pretty horrific stuff. For a real example of what such a society (Ayn Rand) would look like check out the Ik people of Uganda, who descended into a Hobbesian “war against all” after their land was stolen by the government (more law at work) to build a nature preserve. It’s a vision of hell and is outlinled in Colin Turnbull’s book “The Mountain People”. He also wrote a book called “the Forest People”, which describes the Mbuti pygmies of the Ituri rainforest, a beautiful society run according to anarchist principles.

Well I've officially dug into it, and blogged it.
Great catch, good timing too, maybe cutting it a bit close considering Operation Vigilant Guardian is supposed to start up this weekend.

I don't know who this FAUX NEWS guy is, haven't ever seen him before and am not defending him. But after watching and listening to the piece, I doubt he was purposely trying to be disrespectful with his cough or clearing of his throat. He did say "pardon me" after all, immediately after clearing his throat. Which lends strength to what he did as being non-purposeful. Most people wouldn't politely say anything apologetic like that, if they were lightly or subtley mocking someone. It doesn't fit. It would make more sense for him to smirk, or roll his eyes, or shake his head in a light continuation of his mocking sound. Maybe he was nervous, or needed a drink of water or something.

Disclaimer

- Ø®£Z - is in no way defending FAUX NEWS.

lol

"Well done people, your direct action in putting Alex's alert out may have just prevented the globalists from being able to pull off a major staged attack in the short term."

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/150806_b_FOX.htm

I notice than whenever any big 9/11-related news breaks, people come out of the woodwork to bash truthers, and Nico Haupt posts cartoon plane stuff all over the place. (I don't think it's by coincidence, either.)

Don't know what this is all about but, "The Man Who Predicted 9/11" is on the History Channel right now in New York! (It started 10 minutes ago.)

Ø®£Z:

I sure seemed innocent to me. At most, the man was choking upon the very thought.... bless his soul.

Joe:

That was something else, and I enjoyed reading it immensely.

It makes me think..... and I love it.

*It

Thanks Erin. Honestly not trying to rain on anyone's parade. I agree with libertarians alot more than I agree with luke-warm liberals. And I think there's lost of points of contact between the "left" and "right" libertarian factions which can be (ahem) capitalized upon in the future.

:)

BTW, I usually post under the name "Danse".

Alex Jones is an amazing guy, but he isn't perfect by any means. His warped Christian beliefs really prove that to me.

Yes, I would agree that "left" and "right" libertarians should have an easy time finding (ahem) common ground, once they embrace the philosophy of liberty.

Sovereignty, is a great topic too.... you can think left, right, up, down, in out whatever you like.... so long as you do not infringe upon others. Damn it... we still have to figure out how to share this single blue globe.

Just to be on the safe side, I "vote" to protect and preserve it, if for no other reason so that we can argue over who gets to fuck lake-side on which weekends.

From discussions on another posting, I'm going to start using my "porn name" (first dog and street)

digg's comments section reflect an ignorant/co-opted audience, oh boy.

Maybe the 30% who don't know what year 9/11 occured,Anonymous? LOL..I read some and.they talk as if they were born yesterday