Episcopalian Priest and 911 truther Frank Morales argued on Guns and Butter that the next revolution will be global. Elites want a global government, therefore the revolution will transcend borders. It may start in a particular locale but will inevitably spread worldwide.

The goal of the “new left”, from my vantage point, is to create a decentralized network of self-governing communities federated horizontally rather than supporting a massive pyramidal technocracy or “global communist state”.

The goal of paleoconservatives is state sovereignty. There is a common thread here. Both factions – if they can be called factions (I dislike the term) – believe in a certain degree of decentralization; we should build on this.

We do not want global government.

Fundamental disagreements arise over issues like democracy, capital accumulation, cooperation vs. competition, institutional hierarchy, the role of the state (if any) and so forth, but when it comes to issues like individual rights, peace, justice and eliminating the parasitic elite, we’re all basically on the same page.

That word “basically” encompasses a thousand conflicts. It is false to say that the “left/right” paradigm is non-existent--comforting but fallacious. It still exists, but in a mutated and highly fungible form. The sham is in the FAKE left/right paradigm, ie demorats and rethuglicans and the meaningless wedge issues they wave in front of us like kidnapper’s candy, never intending to solve said issues in the first place.

I won’t go further into the issues that divide us; we know them well enough. What I’m interested in here is 911 truth and what potential the movement has, if any.

In an email exchange with Chomsky on the subject he said: “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”.

Chomsky’s quip is a gross understatement of the movement’s potential, in my opinion, yet it is not without empirical basis. Widespread understanding by the public of the dark forces behind the JFK assassination have led us precisely nowhere, even with a brilliant film to elucidate the evidence; in addition, the end-goal of many truthers appears to be precisely what Chomsky sardonically refers to: a “firing squad” scenario with no afterward in mind. Fundamentally changing the structure of the system rarely enters the picture, even though we all know, at the back of our minds, that the system must be fundamentally changed if we are to survive.

This is why the 911 truth movement is not regarded as a threat by elites. Yet.

We are regarded as a nuisance, a thorn in their side, a mouse in the cupboard; we undermine faux-patriotism and lock-step unity amongst the plebs (their word, not mine), but so far we are lacking in vision and organization and therefore basically impotent.

Some truthers don’t even go so far as a firing squad; re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic is, apparently, sufficient. These entities merely want a “new investigation” (yes, I’m aware that “new investigation” is a pseudonym for more radical measures, but you get my point). While a fresh, relatively unbiased purview of the evidence is certainly in order, I would remind truthers that a new investigation into the JFK assassination was launched in the 1970’s, complete with a conclusion of conspiracy. It produced no tangible effect.

I base my conclusion of relative impotence on several factors. In the interests of time I’ll focus on just one: COINTELPRO.

The degree to which elites regard a movement as threatening or merely annoying can be adduced by the level of counter-intelligence directed toward it.

The Black Panthers have the dubious distinction of being the most consistently repressed, harassed, brutalized, framed and frequently murdered of all organizations in the history of the United States, with the possible exception of the anarchist movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

[Indeed, state resistance to the anarchist movement gave birth to the modern provocateur action. As anarchists gained strength in Spain circa 1890, the Spanish authorities created their own fake “anarchist” organization known as La Mano Negra, “The Black Hand”. Agents of the police murdered members of the aristocracy, public outrage ensued, and the movement was broken up until it was reborn, Phoenix like, in the great Spanish Civil War. Similarly, in the United States around the same period, during a rally organized by anarchists to urge the end of child labor and the adoption of the eight-hour work day (which you now enjoy, somewhat, thank you very much), a provocateur threw a bomb at the police. Several anarchists were hanged as a result, even though they were all standing at the stage at the time.]

“The executions aroused people all over the country. There was a funeral march of 25,000 in Chicago. Some evidence came out that a man named Rudolph Schnaubelt, supposedly an anarchist, was actually an agent of the police, an agent provocateur, hired to throw the bomb and thus enable the arrest of hundreds, the destruction of the revolutionary leadership in Chicago. But to this day, it has not been discovered who threw the bomb.”

George Bernard Shaw bitterly condemned the executions: “"If the world must lose eight of its people, it can better afford to lose the eight members of the Illinois Supreme Court."

I could go on and on about this “strategy of tension”. Most of you are aware of Gladio.
Some of you may be less aware of events which occurred and continue to occur in your own country. “Al-Qaeda” notwithstanding. Take Richard Lyons:

“An infiltrator’s success didn’t’ always rely on discrediting an organization or bringing legal action against the. For example, in 1967 the New York Police Department sent Richard Lyons, a civilian, into the Veterans and Reservists Against the War. During the two years he was a member, he advocated that the V&R attack soldiers with tear gas and carry replica machine guns. Each suggestion was firmly rejected in favor of legal and nonviolent tactics. Nevertheless, when he was finally exposed of 1968, the knowledge that they had been infiltrated greatly added to feelings of demoralization and contributed to the V&R’s collapse.” (Our Enemies in Blue)

Or FBI provocateur actions in the 60’s:

Chomsky: (yes, Chomsky):

“During these years, FBI provocateurs repeatedly urged and initiated violent acts, including forceful disruption of meetings and demonstrations on and off university campuses, attacks on police, bombings, and so on. Meanwhile, government agencies financed, helped organize, and supplied arms to right-wing terrorist groups that carried out fire-bombings, burglaries, and shootings, all with the knowledge of the government agencies responsible 12 -- in most cases the FBI, although one right-wing terrorist in Chicago claims that his group was financed and directed in part by the CIA. 13

One FBI provocateur resigned when he was asked to arrange the bombing of a bridge in such a way that the person who placed the booby-trapped bomb would be killed. This was in Seattle, where it was revealed that FBI infiltrators had been engaged in a campaign of arson, terrorism, and bombings of university and civic buildings, and where the FBI arranged a robbery, entrapping a young black man who was paid $75 for the job and killed in a police ambush. 14 In another case, an undercover operative who had formed and headed a pro-Communist Chinese organization "at the direction of the bureau" reports that at the Miami Republican convention he incited "people to turn over one of the buses and then told them that if they really wanted to blow the bus up, to stick a rag in the gas tank and light it" (they were unable to overturn the vehicle).

The same ex-operative contends that Cointelpro-type operations, allegedly suspended in April 1971, were in fact continuing as late as mid-1974, when he left the Bureau's employ. 15 Many details are now available concerning the extensive campaign of terror and disruption waged by the government during these years, in part through right-wing paramilitary groups organized and financed by the national government but primarily through the much more effective means of infiltration and provocation. In particular, much of the violence on campus can be attributed to government provocateurs.”

Or (to bring the anarchist movement up to date):

As the anarchist Starhawk noted afterwards, in Genoa "we encountered a carefully orchestrated political campaign of state terrorism. The campaign included disinformation, the use of infiltrators and provocateurs, collusion with avowed Fascist groups . . . , the deliberate targeting of non-violent groups for tear gas and beating, endemic police brutality, the torture of prisoners, the political persecution of organisers . . . They did all those openly, in a way that indicates they had no fear of repercussions and expected political protection from the highest sources." [Op. Cit., pp. 128-9]

Judi Bari, an eco-activist and animal rights activist, had a pipe-bomb planted in her car under her seat in the 90’s. She was almost killed. The police tried to blame her for the bomb. The jury thought otherwise. Though vindicated of the fake accusation, she later died of cancer.

Ward Churchill (despite his lame blow-back theory) has written the most comprehensive study of COINTELPRO. This is essential reading for any activist, whatever you think of his opinions on 911.

The problem with the panthers – in the eyes of the elite – was that they combined militancy, non-terrorism and social justice. They did not engage in terrorist acts like the CIA-funded SLA. They organized free medical clinics, they distributed food to the poor, they tried to eliminate drug addition in their communities, they had young toughs walk with old ladies as they went home in order to eliminate fear in the community. Worst of all, they organized armed patrols to patrol the police (!) and prevent brutality. They tried to replace the state with community. Thus, they had to be eliminated.

Obviously, the panthers made mistakes, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about them in the past tense (there are a few lame remnants, but nothing to write home about). Their worst error was embracing a communist Maoist philosophy.

But they serve as a model for the lengths the state will go to eliminate a group elite’s find threatening. Geronimo Pratt was framed and later (after spending a decade in solitary confinement) released, vindicated. Fred Hampton was shot down in cold blood – the cops were provided with a detailed schema of his apartment by the FBI. Panthers were inundated with letters accusing each the other of being informants. They were pilloried in the press. The FBI created a fake “black panther coloring book” which encouraged children to shoot “pigs”. The campaign was merciless.

Tactics nowadays are likely to be less ham-fisted, but elites will not hesitate to use the iron fist rather than just the velvet glove, if it comes to that.

We are now in the period of the velvet glove. We will remain so unless we up the ante.

I will now detail the disinformation tactics currently being employed against the 911 truth movement. Next, I will suggest strategies of circumventing the more brutal tactics likely to be employed should we take it to the next level. Finally, I will give my recommendation as to what the movement should do to surpass “internet” status.

Where are we now?

We’re somewhere inbetween the “laugh at you” and “attack you” phase.

The “laugh at you” phase is just as multilayered as the “attack you” phase, the former involving everything from smarmy dismissals to false leads, the “attack you” phase involving everything from vicious editorials to threats to provocateur action.

We can use Jim Garrison’s investigation into the JFK op as a model.

Quotes from “A Farewell to Justice” by Joan Mellon:

“I should think twice about working on the Garrison investigation,” an anonymous caller soon whispered. “We can have someone look at your taxes.”
pg 93, phone call to Alberto Fowler

We can assume these methods and others more vicious have been employed against potential whistleblowers. The JFK op left a trail of bodies. One body has perhaps surfaced with respect 911 in the form of Burligame’s daugher. Perhaps. Many more, including (no doubt) Atta, are buried in lonely graves.

“A CIA document dated April 4, 1967. Titled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Report,” it is addressed to “Chief, Certain Stations and Bases and outlines how the CIA’s media assets should respond to critics.” CIA should “employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critic” through “book reviews and feature articles,” CIA advises. Jim Garrison, a war hero could not be credibly accused of “Communist sympathies,”…But he might—and this is what Max Holand has done in a barrage of articles—be attacked as part of a “a planned Soviet propaganda operation.”

See: Amanpour and 911 truthers as “terrorist recruiters”.

“I am here in New Orleans representing Robert Kennedy, ”Sheridan said, “and I have been sent own here to stop the probe, no matter what it takes.”

See: elite partnership, democrat or republican, attempting to suppress 911 truth. The RFK angle is one of the most disturbing and interesting of the JFK assassination saga, but I’ll leave those tid bits for the book.

“We’re going to destroy Jim Garrison. Everybody is going down.”
-Richard Townley

See: various attack on Stephen Jones.

“With Walter Sheridan temporarily at bay, J.Edgar Hoover devised a new scheme to discredit Jim Garrison. His instrument would be a reporter named Sandy Smith, writing for Life magazine. “The Director likes to do things for Sandy,” Richard Billings was told when he heard about the Life’ projected series on organized crime. Despite its seeming national scope—the Mafia rampant in America—the raison d’etre of the two Life articles, running on September 1 and 8, 1967 was to tie the mafia with Jim Garrison.”

See Hollywood Films: Flight 97, forthcoming “Against All Enemies”.

“William Alford concluded that Spiesel had been “one of those plants” placed to destroy Garrison’s case, even as Spiesel’s ‘knowledge of Shaw’s real estate had been established to lure Garrison into accepting him as a witness. Richard Popkin viewed Spiesel as a “set-up.” Spiesel was, Garrison would conclude, “A pleasant-mannered bomb unloaded on us for the trial by the company”. For the government, “destroying an old-fashioned state jury trial was like shooting a fish in a barrel with a shotgun.”

See: Haupt and other characters; first establish cred, then drop the disinfo and discred.

“I like to think that Garrison invents monsters to explain incompetence.”
John Leonard, NY Times

See: Initial “liberal” incompetence theory, still popular.

“Describing his own investigation as only a beginning, Garrison stated that he did not want personally “to get into the act.” He hoped to help Fonzi “avoid the mistakes” he had made, to “separate out the false leads and identify the Greek coming in with the gifts.”

See: “no planes”, space beams etc.

There’s another angle here. Controversy has erupted over the alleged incident of a Jew in a Jewish graveyard overhearing agents of the Mossad discussing an impending plot. With typical acuity, the members of 911 blogger dissected this alleged conversation and cried foul. Now maybe we/they are wrong, but this whole Mossad vs. CIA angle wreaks of disinfo. Rather than saying BOTH the Mossad and the American intell community carried out the attacks, it has to be either/or. This smells like divide and conquer.

We ALREADY have unimpeachable evidence that the Mossad was monitoring the attacks. Dancing Israelis etc. The graveyard story smells like a disinfo tract. I may be wrong. But that’s my opinion at this point.

LIHOP/MIHOP is another example. Both imply complicity (treason), yet one is supposed to be serious and the other frivolous. What!?

“Beckham admits that he lied to Jim Garrison’s grand jury. He says he was told they had an “in” planted in Garrison’s office, ensuring that “the investigation would be ran the opposite direction, so for me not to worry.” Fred and Jack Martin were CIA operatives,” Beckham says, performing “services for government agencies.”

See: use your imagination.

Life Fonzi, Tanenbaum was at first way of Garison. Then he was shown a list of CIA plants in Garrison’s office, a list was witnessed by researcher Eddie Lopez and by Louisiana investigator, L.J. Delsa. There were at least nine names: Among them were Raymond Beck, William Martin, Gordon Novel, Thomas Bethell, William Gurvich, Bill Boxley and Pershing Gervais.

Purpose for Pakistani “wire transfer” exposure?

In fact, Marchetti had been fed partial disinformation. There would be a person sacrificed by the CIA as a limited hang out. But it would not be E. Howard Hunt. Rather, the CIA’s newest scapegoat was a certain gray-hailed gentleman prominent in New Orleans society. AS the final HSCA rep;ort reveals, the Agency sacrificed Clay Shaw. The report calls Shaw “limited hang out, cut out”.

--

Where to go: What’s Next:

Next Blog

:)