Ken Jenkins on Alex Jones today.

David Ray Griffin

Alex welcomes the Theologist and Author David Ray Griffin to discuss the ongoing struggle for 9/11 Truth and the recent rise in hit-pieces against the movement in the media.

(Edit: looks like no DRG today.)

Ken Jenkins

Later Alex speaks with award winning video and media producer, 9/11 Truth Activist and the producer of several of David Ray Griffin'works, Ken Jenkins, about his efforts on Griffin's newest video, 9/11 The Myth and The Reality.

A Great example of Ken Jenkin's work

One of of my favorite 9/11 Truth DVDs...gets to people's psychological resistance to this information, something we've all experienced:

DRG is the man!

cant wait to hear this one

I'm interested to know Alex

I'm interested to know Alex Jones opinion on DRG considering DRG is pro world government.

Can you....

document that?....


You are quoting Angie D'Urso??


DRG was forced to write a formal response to this bit of trash journalism.

Together with Nico Haupt, Angie D'Urso was the first 9/11 breakaway group that launched an anti-911 campaign that included attacks upon, Michael Ruppert, Mike Berger, among nearly EVERY reputable researcher in this movement.

Together they have worked with WingTV in smearing and threatening everyone in this movement with an OUNCE of integrity.

Angie D'Urso? Nico Haupt? you are stacking THEM against David Ray Griffin?


where DO you people come from?


Steve Dinan and David Ray Griffin respond to Angie D'Urso's widely disseminated "The Creepy Sides of the 9/11 Truth Movement"

*********** BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE ***********

Stephen Dinan wrote:

9/11 truth folks,

Here's a response that David Ray Griffin sent to the piece that Angie wrote. It's long but quite well argued and pretty patient rather than reactive. He was fine with it being shared here. Towards the end, he states the most important point, which is that wasting time on these sorts of things compromises productivity.

In my opinion, every time someone who is a leader in the movement is attacked in this fashion, it subtracts energy from our forward momentum in general and leads them to pull back. Ironically, this is what disinformation is designed to do - confuse, splinter, etc.

I certainly would NOT accuse Angie of disinformation, because I don't think that's what she is consciously doing. But the net effect of this sort of in-fighting and suspicion-mongering is the SAME as disinformation campaigns: it undermines positive energy moving forward, increases fractiousness, and wastes time, as well as providing fodder for any media to dismiss the movement as psychologically unbalanced.

I don't doubt that virtually anyone in the movement could effectively be attacked in this movement. It's the recipe that Karl Rove uses: find something that plays into people's fears, selectively present only that side of the story (or exaggerate it) and let others start debating it or reacting to it, which undermines the power of whoever is being attacked. Everyone is vulnerable to this.

For our part, I really think it's not responsible or useful to indulge this and so I encourage people not to forward this sort of thing.

Stephen Dinan


From David Ray Griffin

To Angela D'Urso (

Dear Angie,

A couple of people recently sent me your piece, "The Creepy Sides of the 911 Truth Movement."

Being short on time, I will respond only to your theory and your paragraph about me and my associates.

I gather that you do not put me in the category of those who do not "really want the 911 truth exposed." I am thankful for that. You put me merely in the category of those who do want it exposed but NOT "for 'good' reasons." That is, I evidently "want it exposed" but am still "a bad guy."

I must confess that, in the eyes of God, I am probably indeed a pretty bad guy. But I was somewhat surprised by the reasons you gave for warning really pure 9/11 truth-seekers to be wary of me.

One of your reasons appears to be that both I and Richard Falk, the author of the Foreword to my book, are "one world government aficionados." It is certainly true that I am in favor of global democracy and have been working on a rather big book on this topic for many years. But I was surprised that you would assume that there is something "creepy" to what I have in mind without looking at my arguments and the particular form of "world government" that I advocate. Since you and I had corresponded some time back, if I correctly recall, I am puzzled why you, given your obvious concern for truth, did not write to find out exactly what my views are before suggesting, in a public document, that they are somehow involved in a massive conspiracy.

I might add here that I too have wondered why US officials would have apparently made it so evident that they did it. I have my own thoughts about this, but am not certain enough about them to go public with them. With regard to your own view, it is certainly possible. But it seems to me very improbable. However, even if you yourself consider your own theory highly probable, I think you should be cautious about simply assuming that there is some close correlation between it and The Truth. And you should, I would suggest, be especially careful about then quickly concluding that anything that possibly might be part of this Big Picture of What Is Really Going On, which you have constructed, is indeed part of it. I would suggest that you should be more cautions still about next, without even checking the truth of various things you have read or heard, suggesting these connections to the world. This is exactly the kind of approach that has given "conspiracy theorists" a bad name.

In any case, to look at the issues you raise: In finding the idea of global government of any sort dangerous, you are certainly endorsing the conventional view. But if you are interested, I would be happy to send you some writings in which I try to show why this conventional view needs to be rethought. Of course, I don't know exactly why you find the very idea of global government creepy. (I have a list of 10 reasons that have commonly been given for opposing it.) But what I have in mind is a system in which the main decisions about the future of the planet would not be made by a tiny elite group in a nation with around 4 percent of the world's population. On my own creep-o-meter, this present system of global governance gets extremely high marks. I believe that if we are in favor of democracy as the best way to govern a country, we should be in favor of democracy for human civilization as a whole.

Indeed, if I were so inclined, I could weave a conspiracy theory in which, because you oppose my solution, you are covertly working for those who want to keep the US government in control of the planet. You can see how easy and seductive this logic can be:

(1) X (the present system of global governance) is the real problem.

(2) Angie is denying that X is the real problem.

(3) In fact, Angie is criticizing people who see that X is the real problem.

(4) Therefore, Angie must be an infiltrator in our movement, working on behalf of those who are promoting X.

I myself would like to see a decline of this kind of thinking in the 9/11 Truth Movement and an increase in work that focuses on exposing the perpetrators. For one thing, if we each insist that we will not work with others if we know or even suspect that their motives, their convictions about 9/11, and their worldviews are not the same as our own, we will not have a movement.

In any case, to turn to the more particular issues you raise in relation to me and my associates, by way of suggesting that we are playing roles in your own version of What Is Really Going On:

Richard's work helped get me started thinking about global democracy, but he has, in spite of my prodding, not been advocating the idea of global democracy in what I call the strong sense (the sense in which Einstein advocated it). You say that you find "one world gov't. advocates creepy." I am surprised that you would move from the perception that certain people hold ideas you disagree with to the conclusion that the people themselves are creepy. But since Richard is not advocating one world government, you need to restrict your conclusion to me alone. More generally, in any case, Richard is about the last person to whom I would apply the adjective "creepy."

With regard to your specific statements. As to the Council of Foreign Relations, Richard became a member in about 1969, he says, and has "remained a member despite a variety of misgivings." Although he was between trips when I caught up with him to ask him about this, I can imagine he has remained a member with the thought of perhaps having some positive influence. His field is International Law, and he is well known for trying to introduce normative concerns into international politics. He has thereby opposed "political science" insofar as it seeks to leave out all normative (i.e. moral) considerations. He has also been an opponent of "political realism," at least the sort that maintains that power is all that counts and should count in international relations. One example of his trying to have an influence on CFR was what he describes as "a huge fight with David Rockefeller over the appointment of William Bundy as editor of Foreign Affairs." With regard to your statement that Richard "has worked on new world order projects for the CFR, like the World Order Models Project," he reports: "I did have a marginal relationship to the 1980s Project, which was trying to project a set of future conditions in world affairs, and was headed by Princeton colleague, Richard Ullman. It was a rather benign undertaking, and had nothing to do with the world order models project."

You ask: "What the hell is one to make of a CFR member wanting to expose 9-11?" You seem to have a very simple view of human motivations and belongings, as if you could draw some inference from Richard's membership in CFR--which is one of literally dozens of organizations to which he belongs and probably one of the least important in his life--and his motivation for exposing the truth about 9/11. He wants to do the latter because he has always worked to expose the truth about important things, and because, through reading my manuscript, he came to believe that the official story about 9/11 was false. To come out publicly with his support for the alternative view took courage on his part, because he had previously argued that the US government's response in Afghanistan was correct--that it could be considered a "just response" (or could have been if the principles of just-war theory had been followed). This is the issue that he and I most disagreed about. But my point now is that Richard had the courage to say, by writing the Foreword to my book, that he had been wrong.

It would be hard, furthermore, to find many people who have worked longer and harder on behalf of good causes around the world. Because of this, I found your slurs against him the most offensive part of your essay. To suggest that Richard does not really want the truth exposed, or that he is doing this for some nefarious reason, is simply inexcusable. Perhaps John Gray will forgive you, but I confess that I will have difficulty.

I am, furthermore, puzzled as to what research you did for your information about John Cobb. He was formerly my professor and then my colleague at the Claremont School of Theology and in the Department of Religious Studies at Claremont Graduate University, where he taught from the late 1950s until he retired 15 years ago. His wife will surely be somewhat amused to find that he had been moonlighting as the "senior economist for the World Bank."

I first thought you must have gotten him confused with Herman Daly, but then I see that you mention Herman as well. Herman actually did work for the World Bank, but he--as long the leading advocate of green, sustainable, steady-state economics--could never have been the senior economist at the World Bank. I frankly don't know what connection he has had with the Club of Rome, but he obviously shares at least some of the concerns of what is probably the most well-known book associated with the Club, The Limits to Growth. But if you would read Herman's writings, you could disabuse yourself of the suspicion that he would knowingly be involved with any of the nefarious schemes that you suggest are promoted by the Club. I can also tell you that I have thus far been unable to interest Herman in my ideas about global democracy.

Incidentally, you seem to think that "global governance" is simply a synonym for "global government." But they may be very different. Those who use the language of "global governance" often speak of "governance without government." I suspect that this is the Club of Rome position. Whether that position is coherent is another question, but if you want to speak accurately about these matters, you need to understand the difference.

Although John is not an economist by training or profession, he did, with Herman's help, teach himself a lot about economics, and the two of them co-authored a book--For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future--which I would commend to your attention. I don't think you will find it one bit creepy. (Indeed, they explicitly wrote against World Government, evidently having in mind the scary version of it that you share. In the meantime, John's position has moved closer to mine, but Herman's, as far as I know, has not.)

John also wrote a book called The Earthist Challenge to Economism: A Theological Critique of the World Bank. But, alas, even that did not get him invited to become the Bank's senior economist.

He has, however, long been considered one of the best progressive theologians in the world, and he has been passionately concerned about the future of the earth since he awoke to the ecological crisis in the late 1960s. He is, in fact, known as the first philosopher as well as the first theologian to write a book reflecting this concern. His little book, Is It Too Late? A Theology of Ecology, is still considered sufficiently relevant to be reissued. He has in the meantime written many books and article and given countless speeches on the need to change course before we destroy ourselves and much of the rest of the life of the planet. I can assure you that the purity of his motives probably rivals that of your own.

Besides my association with these individuals, the next mark against me in your book is evidently the fact that after Cobb and I founded the Center for Process Studies, it "received support from the Rockefeller Foundation." Had you written to ask about this, I would have gladly given you more specific information: Our first conference, held in the summer of 1974, brought together a number of distinguished scientists and philosophers to discuss problems in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution and to consider an alternative to it. It took place at the Rockefeller Foundation's Study and Conference Center at Bellagio, Italy. The arrangement is that if they accept your application and you can pay the way for all the conferees to get there, they give you room, board, and a meeting place for 3 or 4 days. That has been the extent of our center's support from the Rockefeller Foundation. Cobb and I acknowledge this support in the Preface of the resulting book, Mind in Nature: Essays on the Interface of Science and Philosophy.

Incidentally, I personally, as an individual scholar, went back to Bellagio in 1992, where my wife and I stayed for about 5 weeks. It was there, in fact, that I first developed the conviction that if the world's global problems are to be solved, we need to move from the present global structure--technically known as global anarchy--to global democracy. This past year I applied to return, with the hope of finishing a book that I started the day after 9/11. But this time my application was denied. Perhaps I was foolish to reveal my topic: global democracy as the only, or at least the best, way to overcome US imperialism (certainly better than the standard approach, which would be for the other nations to combine forces against us, which would probably be a route to global nuclear war).

You also say that I have "some unusual ideas about how humanity should think about God." Should I infer from this that you think the usual ideas--those of traditional theism--have been good enough? Compared to traditional theism, in any case, my ideas are indeed "unusual." But I am a member of the movement known as "process theology," and one of the complaints leveled against it by some of its opponents is that it has become "the establishment view." That is, to be sure, a great exaggeration. But it suggests that among informed people, the kind of ideas I advocate are no longer considered unusual. They have in particular been endorsed by many feminist theologians. You could get a brief overview in a book entitled Process Theology, which Cobb and I co-authored in 1977. Some of my reasons for preferring this view to traditional theism are explained in my 1976 book, God, Power, and Evil, and my 1991 book, Evil Revisited. For a feminist process theologian, see the writings of Catherine Keller.

You also seem to think that there is something perverse about the fact that I advocate "some type of mysticism." You evidently are not much concerned with exactly which type. But you apparently assume that it is some reactionary type, since you say that I apparently want us "to revert" to it. But there are, of course, many different types of mysticism--or, to be more precise, types of positions that are sometimes labelled "mysticism," whether by their advocates or their detractors.

But since you appear to be interested in this part of my position, let me say that I do indeed endorse "mysticism," if that term is used in the descriptive sense to mean that there is a Holy Reality with which we are directly connected. According to my epistemology, it is through this direct (nonsensory) connection that we are aware of the normative status of Truth and Justice and sometimes even become committed to having those abstract values actualized. (I explain this in a recent book, Reenchantment without Supernaturalism: A Process Philosophy of Religion.) I also endorse mysticism as a practice, understood as the attempt consciously to cultivate this connection, so that our motivations and actions will be attuned to the good of the whole rather than to our own selfish good or to the good of only some portion of the whole, as in fascism and other forms of exclusivistic nationalism.

With regard to my religious and theological writings, I am glad you referred interested readers to the little interview with me that In Context p ublished back in 1990. But of course we can never assume that we have received an adequate account of a person's views on complex issues from a brief interview. And my philosophical and theological views are hardly a secret, but have been published in many other books, beyond the ones already mentioned (most of which can be found on Some people probably wonder, indeed, if I have an unpublished thought.

In any case, given your evident concern for truth and purity of motive, I assumed that you would like to have these clarifications, so that in the future any statements you might wish to make about me and my views can be more accurate.

I was tempted to say something about the slurs you made against other people. But because of limits of time and knowledge, I will not. I do hope, however, that you will consider the possibility that what you have said and insinuated about them may be as ill-informed as what you have said and insinuated about me and my associates.

In closing, let me add that I am sure that you mean well. I would never question your motives. But I do find the kind of approach you took in this particular essay unhelpful. For one thing, you probably will cause several people in the movement to waste time responding. I at the moment, for example, am trying to finish up a book on the 9/11 Commission Report, so every hour is precious. And yet I have now wasted over an hour responding to your ill-informed allegations and innuendoes. I, of course, did not need to respond. I usually simply ignore such stuff. But I have observed how false allegations, if not corrected, often quickly become accepted as established fact. I also noticed that someone in the movement whose opinion I respect spoke favorably of your piece. So I took the time. But I hope not to need to do this again.

Yours truly,

David Griffin

Of course we need world government

Just not one that is fascist like we seem to be getting. Government can be quite beneficial if it is well designed and protected from abuse and corruption--how else will we regulate and enforce environmental protection? The point is that like all issues, issues of global governance do not have to be black and white. Sure Alex Jones is right to criticize the current seekers of world government, but that doesn't mean that the world does not need a system of laws and rules. We just have to ensure that they are as benign as possible and in the interest of people. When we fail to secure that for our own country of course we have to be careful when trying to achieve it for the world, but we have to start somewhere, and the first thing is to use the truth of 9/11 to awaken poeple to the dangers of global information monopolies, monetary monopolies, arms merchants, etc.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


True, but the danger is that

True, but the danger is that even after a benign and beneficial global governance system is in place, certain corrupt elements might well work behind the scenes, perhaps for centauries through generations of criminal networks/families, and eventually establish a covert global tyranny using the previous initially well intended global system. I agree with your sentiments dude, I just think that the progress can be made with more stability and efficiency by keeping national Sovereignties and independence but with a revolutionary global understanding that's committed to international cooperation and progress. And you’re right I also think 911 truth would be a big part of that because it would provoke the people of the world to relate to each other more, and perhaps even instigate a global culture of lasting vigilance against power.

There Exists No Such Thing as a "Beneficial Government"

All governments are illegitimate because they are all founded upon double-standards and hypocrisy, and thereby commit a performative contradiction and hence are logically estopped. That is to say, all governments, in order to be governments, do to others what they outlaw others to do to them. Another way to state this is that all governments are founded upon and follow the Satanic Principle, i.e., the opposite of the Golden Rule.

All governments must of necessity violate the dictates they require their common masses to follow, otherwise they would not be governments but would be something else instead.

To understand why this is unalterably true, one must first have a clear and precise understanding of just what a "government" is and just what it is not, i.e., the distinguishing characteristics of government which differentiates it from all other things that are not governments.

When the word is used in the sense above, government (i.e., a state) is that organization in society which attempts to maintain, and is generally successful at maintaining, a coercive regional monopoly over ultimate control of the law (i.e., on the courts and police, etc.)—this is a feature of all governments; as well, historically speaking it has always been the case that it is the only organization in society that legally obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for contracted services rendered but by coercion. (For more on this, see further below.)

As well, the notion of instituting a world government is an especially odious and morally repugnant idea. For the only way for that to happen is the subjugation of the world's peoples under this world government.

The raison d’être usually given for having a world government is because then wars between governments would no longer be waged, being that there would only be one government. But the death tolls inflicted by wars between governments pales in comparison to the slaughter that governments commit upon their very own populations. Hence, if the desire is to reduce homocide and human suffering then establishing a world government would be quite an effective way to work against that goal. All the more so, since under a world government people would have nowhere to run to in order to escape it, so a world government would be even more effective in slaughtering its masses than governments to date have been.

More than four times the amount of non-combatants have been systematically murdered for purely ideological reasons by their own governments within the past century than were killed in that same time-span from wars. From 1900 to 1923, various Turkish regimes killed from 3,500,000 to over 4,300,000 of its own Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, and other Christians. Communist governments have murdered over 110 million of their own subjects since 1917. And Germany murdered some 16 million of it own subjects in the past century. (The preceding figures are from Prof. Rudolph Joseph Rummel's website at .)

All totaled, neither the private-sector crime which government is largely responsible for promoting and causing or even the wars committed by governments upon the subjects of other governments come anywhere close to the crimes government is directly responsible for committing against its own citizens--certainly not in amount of numbers. Without a doubt, the most dangerous presence to ever exist throughout history has always been the people's very own government.

Needless to say, all of these government mass-slaughters were conspiracies--massive conspiracies, at that.

Below are some excellent articles concerning the nature of government, of liberty, and the free-market production of defense:

"The Anatomy of the State," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 1965), pp. 1-24. Reprinted in a collection of some of Rothbard's articles, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (Washington, D.C.: Libertarian Review Press, 1974):

"Defense Services on the Free Market," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, Chapter 1 from Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City, Kansas: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; originally published 1970):

"The Private Production of Defense," Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter 1998-1999), pp. 27-52:

"Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security," Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter 1989), pp. 27-46:

"Police, Courts, and Laws--On the Market," Chapter 29 from The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism, Prof. David D. Friedman (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Co., 1989; originally published 1971):

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."--H. L. Mencken


This guy is crazy, even though he is in the 9-11 truth movement, he wants to use the 9-11 excuse as a way to replace the Bush elite class with another elite class. And by the way the theory of global democracy seems to elitist. In truth, real democracy means workers-ownership, it means real economic democracy, and not just Rockefeller Foundation democracy. I think you could get better instruction on what real democracy is in the website or than in The Rockefeller Foundation, any thing linked to a high elite group is doubtful to me, the only thing that could democratize this world, is workers struggle, class struggle, revolutions, and a real workers class alternative, socialism not some fancy, dumbfounded, elitist, self-invented idea about how the world works

DRG told me and an audience he is pro world government

On April 2, 2006, David Ray Griffin spoke in San Francisco at a Unitarian Church. The topic of course was 9/11 related, I believe it was one of his renditions of his 9/11 Myth vs. Reality speech. The talk was sponsored by the Democratic World Federalists.

The event is described here:

The Democratic World Federalists are described here:

The Democratic World Fderalists describe themselves as follows (excerpts):

World federalists support the creation of democratic global structures accountable to the citizens of the world and call for the division of international authority among separate agencies, a separation of powers among judicial, executive and parliamentary bodies.....

The World Federalist Movement evolved out of a series of organizations and efforts that started in the 1930s as a response to the failure of the League of Nations....

Many focussed on the effort to transform the General Assembly into a world parliament that can enact world law instead of merely making non-binding resolutions. In addition, world federalists made proposals for new United Nations institutions and international organs...

The ultimate goal of world federalists is world federation....

Now, at the talk, at which I was present, I recall there was a statement from members of the WFM on the podium speaking briefly about their organization prior to introducing DRG. I also recall that DRG stated that he was proud to be speaking for the WFM and that he applauded their goals for a world government.

I spoke briefly with DRG after the talk, and told him that I thought that world government was not a good idea because it could be as easily corrupted as any other big government, perhaps even more so. DRG told me that he politiely disagreed with my viewpoint.

So, I guess that DRG believes in global government. That is one of the only things I can think of that I don't like about DRG. Other than that, I believe he has tremendous intellect and power in the 9/11 movement. One other minor area where I disagree with him is I wish he would put a little less emphasis on whether a 757 hit the Pentagon or not, but again, that is a minor gripe. Outside of those two minor areas where I disagree with him, I think he is a stellar person who has been doing a stellar job. I have tremendous respect for DRG, but unfortunately, he believes in world government, and I do not.

PS I am a libertarian, and I

PS I am a libertarian, and I oppose world government. The ideal political system in my opinion is self-government. The next best is what Thomas Jefferson said: that government is best which governs the least.

its amazing

its amazing how people get labeled in this movement. DRG is pro world goverenment - a shill for the NWO - blah blah blah. I've seen this accusation so many times.

I've read his books. yes it appears that DRG sees the chaos and arms race in the world as a result of a vacuum of world leadership. and i agree. the UN has no teeth. the league of nations had less. in this world the empire with the biggest military arsenal gets to make the rules - and break the rules. this is also true. DRG talks about this in his new book.

but to take DRG's affiliations and philosophy and attempt to turn it into something conspiratorial is nonsense.

Agreed. I can't believe

Agreed. I can't believe that people would attack DRG at all really. And in the end, if we can ever actually grow up as a species, some sort of unifying world government is what we are going to need. The question is whether we can manage that without toxicity, evilness and wholesale corruption.

Or Extreme Misguidedness on Prof. Griffin's Part

It's good that people point out David Ray Griffin's grave error in promoting the ruling elite's self-termed New World Order plan for a one-world government, in addition to promoting other odious globalist elite agendas as well. (Yes, by the very same ruling elite who brought us the U.S. government-staged 9/11 attacks, etc., in furtherance of their world government end-goal.) This is how error gets corrected, via the exchange of information and debate.

David Ray Griffin himself admits that his view that a one-world government is necessary was formed at the Bellagio-Rockefeller Study Center, which is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation:

"David Ray Griffin Responds & So Do I, (With Links on 'Sustainable Development' Scam)":

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."--H. L. Mencken

OT to 911blogger TPB

Hi, Re the recent thread Israel and 9/11: Thou Does Protest Too Much, I notice it is categorized under one "taxonomy" category, that being "Anti-Semitism".

Wouldn't a "Zionism" category be more appropriate for this, as well as being of ongoing future utility?

Also, I notice the above thread's comments were locked (new replies disabled) after only 17 replies. That sort of thing gives credence to DBS' charge that 911blogger is a "Zionism Denier" site, though I praise your putting up the blog entry in the first place, risking the ADL's wrath.

Lastly, totally unrelated, I notice that linking directly to a specific comment beyond page 1 of a blog entry, does not work. The url looks like it should work, it ends with a unique comment number, but clicking it just lands you at the top of the first page of the blog entry.


above title was s'posed to be to "911blogger PTB", not "TPB", but you prolly figgered that out.

Improbable Collapse is out.

"considering DRG is pro

"considering DRG is pro world government" he's not...

Indeed He Is

Anonymous, Prof. David Ray Griffin is indeed pro-world government (or at least he certainly *was*--it would be truly wonderful if he no longer is). And it's good that people point out Prof. Griffin's grave error in promoting the ruling elite's self-termed New World Order plan for a one-world government, in addition to promoting other odious globalist elite agendas as well. (Yes, by the very same ruling elite who brought us the U.S. government-staged 9/11 attacks, etc., in furtherance of their world government end-goal.) This is how error gets corrected, via the exchange of information and debate.

David Ray Griffin himself admits that his view that a one-world government is necessary was formed at the Bellagio-Rockefeller Study Center, which is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation:

"David Ray Griffin Responds & So Do I, (With Links on 'Sustainable Development' Scam)":

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."--H. L. Mencken

Yeah I saw it and was kind

Yeah I saw it and was kind of disappointed actually. I expected much more scientific analysis. Even 911 Mysteries had more to offer that IC. I think IC has to be recut and added to. Considering the source, I was expecting the collapse video equivalent of 'Press for Truth' and in that department it falls considerably short.

Just to make it clear I did

Just to make it clear I did not attack DRG nor did I accuse him of being part of anything related to the NWO. All I did was point out that he's pro world government and when asked for a source I provided one. That doesn't mean I agree with the article itself. I'd wanted to use another article I read which mentioned a recent pro world government talk he gave but I couldn't find it.

I love how I get laughed at merely for expressing an opinion. Not even that. For asking a question. I'm just interested to know AJ's opinion on the man. I'm not trying to attack him. 911 truthers laughing at people asking questions is quite bizarre. How many times have you been laughed at for suggesting 9/11 was an inside job (or whatever you believe), John Albanese? Did you enjoy it? Did you respect those people who laughed at you for asking questions? You stare too long into the abyss mate...

This is the article I was

This is the article I was originally intending to post.

"I've heard David Ray Griffin twice since then, once at a small gathering of world government advocates, the other time at the prestigious Commonwealth Club in San Francisco."

I have been attacked in every way possible

but the sad thing is that many of these attacks come from withing the movement.

i was not laughing at you.

the article posted - "The Creepy Side of the 911 Truth Movement" is one of the most blatent hit-pieces against one of the most credible researchers in this movement.

Just the fact that DRG would have to respond, such as he did, was deeply emabarassing for those of us in the NYC movement that the author of this article was associated with.

i was laughing because i know the author of the article and it is amazing that such a despicable hit-piece is STILL making the rounds years after it was written by a complete nobody.

her insinuations are despicable.

but this is nothing new. we have been attacked from withing by so-called 911 activists for as long as this movement has been in existance. connect the dots

To be honest John I haven't

To be honest John I haven't read the article. I was just looking fior a quick source. I'll give it and the reply a proper read tomorrow when I'm not working and reading 9/11 Blogger articles at the same time. ;)

If DRG belives in "global

If DRG belives in "global democracy" he should understand that a world government will not be conducive to this outcome. Perhaps he does, I haven't read his work on the subject. In any case, centralized power has always moved decision making power away from the people; it's inefficient besides, except perhaps at killing and enslaving people. The future is decentralization and federation.

Secession Down to the Individual

As Prof. Rothbard wrote:

And once one concedes that a single world government is *not* necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible "anarchy," why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each *person*? But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist.


"Defense Services on the Free Market," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, Chapter 1 from Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City, Kansas: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; originally published 1970):

See also:

"Recommended Reading Concerning Political and Economic Theory," TetrahedronOmega, September 30, 2005:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."--H. L. Mencken

The Article You Hate Is Truly Great

John Albanese, it's good that people point out David Ray Griffin's grave error in promoting the ruling elite's self-termed New World Order plan for a one-world government, in addition to promoting other odious globalist elite agendas as well. (Yes, by the very same ruling elite who brought us the U.S. government-staged 9/11 attacks, etc., in furtherance of their world government end-goal.) This is how error gets corrected, via the exchange of information and debate.

David Ray Griffin himself admits that his view that a one-world government is necessary was formed at the Bellagio-Rockefeller Study Center, which is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation:

"David Ray Griffin Responds & So Do I, (With Links on 'Sustainable Development' Scam)":

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."--H. L. Mencken

Oh, for God's sake. Did you

Oh, for God's sake. Did you even read the article? I thought not. Actually, if you had and then said what you said knowingly, I would think you a disinfo shill. Thankfully, I just regard you as incredibly ignorant.

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free" (Goethe)..... a paraphrase from V: Cast aside the illusions. Only when you are finally hopeless can you truly be free.

Well, here is the book in

Well, here is the book in which David Ray Griffin authored a chapter called "Global Government: Objections Considered."

Buy the book and read it for yourself. Then come back and share your views.

I also have problems, but.....

I also have problems with the idea of a "global democracy" as DRG advocates.

Centralization of power on such a level would no doubt result in despotism, EVEN if started out altruisticly.

I guarantee also that the basis for such a "democracy" would not be anything similar to what the United States was/is based upon, such as our rights come from God, not from government and therefore government cannot take them away. Most of the world rejects this notion and we would be at the mercy of a global corporate structure that would eventually make the old Soviet Union look like summer camp in comparison. Additionally, how can the world agree on what rights would be included? We can't even agree on what rights (or how much government) we should have in the United States.

However, I think DRG is a brilliant speaker and researcher for 9/11 truth. Hopefully this is just a minor disagreement and there's nothing nefarious with his intentions. My intent here is NOT to smear DRG, but to voice concerns that I'm sure many of us have regarding the direction and intentions of the movement as a whole.

You know, this movement is INCREDIBLY dynamic, in that it has drawn in people from ALL sectors of the political spectrum. My hope is that this movement will make everyone realize that MORE government - or centralized government - is NOT the answer.

What if this world confederation were to democratically vote to ban the Bible or "Catcher In The Rye", for that matter? What if this world confederation were to democratically vote to require all families to have just one child? What if this world confederation were to democratically vote to ban any discussion about 9/11?...........................etc, and so-forth......................

Does David Ray Griffin acknowledge that the ones who carried-out 9/11 ARE trying to form a one-world government? Doesn't he realize that if any such a government would ever to be formed it would be evil to the core? Where would checks and balances come from if all force were centralized into the hands of a single entity?

Again, I am NOT being negative or trying to fracture the movement. I'm asking questions in a positive manner and would like positive answers.

They can't explain the Mineta Testimony:

Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics takes beating from Charles Goyette:

It's ok

You don't need to add disclaimers, you are absolutely correct. It's such an important issue that it should be talked about, and it's not an attack on Griffin's 9/11 work but an appropriate curiosity and concern about a particular political view.

Ironically, these views are completely at odds to what a great many people in the 9/11 movement believe in.

In my view Griffin is a good decent man, and to be fair and as you say he is talking about some kind of 'global democracy', rather than a one world government per se, but when you boil it down it's kind of an irrelevant distinction in practice as many here have pointed out.

'Democracy', here in the UK, is delivering perpetual war, a human ID slave grid, house arrest, internment, exploitation and enslavement and so on. One can only imagine this on a global scale. Democracy itself is no guarantee of anything.

I guess one could say DRG is an 'academic globalist', and sadly he's not alone in his view. Quite a bit of academia has been beguiled by this concept or different flavors of it (such as nation states are bad), and it's quite frightening to see and should not go unchallenged. Yes, that includes Mr Griffin as well.

In DRG's case I think he's well meaning but pretty mislead on this concept, and essentially, although it is a gross characterization, to some extent and by his own admission Griffin represents the 'nice wing' (aka left wing) of the Council of Foreign Relations and although not exclusively, it seems you can in part thank David Rockefeller for this, who presumbably wants you to become so appalled by war and environmental catastrophe that only global government can save you. Of course it can't and won't.

There is nothing wrong with nation states working together voluntarily or within some sort of framework to deal with big issues which to a greater or lesser extent has been happening for decades, but what Griffin is espousing could tip toward an escalation of the current problems the world faces by orders of magnitude.

And the thought of Bill Clinton or Tony Blair as the president of the world being lobbied by every nefarious interest makes me really quite alarmed and should make any rational-thinking person seriously concerned.

The bottom line is people should heavily criticise this kind of concept when it arises and while congratulating him on his outstanding contributions to 9/11, politely inform Dr. Griffin that while it may be well intentioned, this is really not a helpful interest of his, which many people, rightly, see only as a dangerous and slightly offensive sliippery slope of good intention that has no where else to slide other than into replacing one nightmare with another even worse.

And I thank jultra ...

...for paraphrasing most of what I was going to say before I realized it was too late for me to be coherent. Global democracy to my mind means local self-sufficent political economies working together as needed. I'll stop while I'm ahead--it's 2:24 am here.

In addition, Goyette ROCKS.

"Bugger this: I want a better world."

Beware of James Redford! He

Beware of James Redford!
He is a paid neoliberal ideologe.
Mises was an arsehole nobody liked.

I am FOR world government.
In the moment there are NO RULES, and we have MAYHEM.
Any rules are better... less killing of brown people.
(by white people's money... yes you and I are killing!)

Any corruption will be overcome.. just like the present
US government cannot last forever. The "powerful groups"
can do nothing if PEOPLE are empowered.

As an example check how much the world has improved since
US PEOPLE were empowered (e.g. black people vote)

To repeat: Regulation and rule-of-law is cool.
Imagine if USA-military could be indicted... wow.