cut through the propaganda: An open letter to Justin Raimondo at

Justin Raimondo just wrote a piece and posted it on

The title is: "Our Captive Media"
In it he says:

"As the editorial director of, my job is to make sure that we cut through the government propaganda and get at the truth about what is really going on in the world..." --Justin Raimondo,

Hey, Justin:

Airplane damage + fire + gravity do not have enough energy to make the Towers turn into dust at free-fall speed.
That is the truth.
The collapse of the Towers is the main excuse for the wars.
When are you going to cut through this propaganda?



You're wasting your time on

You're wasting your time on him. I used to read that site avidly for about 3-4 years, several hours each day. I kept up on a lot of world events but I never once received a response from him or the site when I brought up 9/11 issues and it's being the root cause of the wars they talk about. He's either suffering severe cognitive dissonance or he's a gatekeeper. IMO he's a gatekeeper. I haven't sent them any donations since I never got a response regarding 9/11 issues.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

You are probably right

but his position is even more contradictory than most.

Antiwar + no 9/11 whatever = Total bs.

Even if he agrees with the official 9/11 story, shouldn't the cause of the wars get some press?

I wonder if a factor with him and others like him might also be that they just do not want to admit they were wrong. Add this factor to cognitive dissonance and you will get instant denial.

Really with him it boils

Really with him it boils down to one of two things: cognitive dissonance or active disinfo.

I'd like to think that he's not disinfo having read and agreed with the bulk of his work and that has been posted @ antiwar. I lean in that direction. At the same time, disinfo works in many ways. You have a broad spectrum of it for the broad spectrum of individuals who will be receiving the information. You have some that is blatant, such as fox news, for those that can't tell strong arguments from weak. And then you have some that is less obvious which is aimed at those of us who are pretty good at parsing arguments and finding logical flaws. I doubt that antiwar fits in this category; however, it has many stories which are well documented as factual and it has never directed it's attention on 9/11, a well documented lie.

*shrug* sometimes I get burned out thinking about all the deception some humans will use against others. If only all children would be taught the art of integrity at a young age.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

blogs/internet news and tv media

Just a thought

TV personalities like Keith Olberman, Jon Stewart, et al who seem to be progressive but don't say a thing about 9-11 may be controlled against their wishes from covering 9-11 (this gives them a very generous benefit of the doubt). They are working in TV networks that seem to have actively connived with the perps.

This is not an excuse for them, Rosie is leaving The View partly due to unacceptable censorship by the program's officials.

What I am getting at is that we may not be able to tell if they are active gatekeepers themselves although effectively their programs are due to restrictions imposed by the networks. This sort of points to not relying or expecting TV networks to ever cover 9-11 at all. They are in a sense all compromised.

Writers in the internet on the other hand are not subject to the same constraints, Huff Po is not owned by GE, same with the anti-war blog sites. So if these writers are still silent on 9-11, then they are more likely to be real disinfo moles or have secret deals with the perps to shut up.

Good point

Makes sense. Seems right.

no more excuses

The hour is getting too late. I have no tolerance for this neurotic form is hypocrisy. These gatekeepers, willing or not, should be reduced to the confines of total irrelevance. These people are a live danger to truth and justice because they are claiming and purporting themselves to be beacons of what we in this movement are striving for, and also because they represent the majority of the progressive mainstream.
The point: gatekeepers are NOT a nuissance. They are a DANGER. And as some in the past have stated, if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. Goes triple for these pathetic obstacles. Something needs to get done with regard to left gatekeepers, something that has not yet been done.

Left gatekeepers

One of the reasons I posted this blog is just what you say.
More should be done to confront this type.
Raimondo does not answer emails, does not debate, and has not discussed 9/11 on his site, as far as I know.
Maybe we should all focus on one or two of them. Try to figure out what their positions are and see if they are open to rational discussion.
What are the categories?
There are those who know and lie, those who are in psychological denial, and those who have avoided looking at the evidence.
There must be something more we can do with people like this.

If anyone is in San

If anyone is in San Francisco they should confront him on video about his stance on 9/11 and give him material relating to it if he is open to it. I'd do it myself but circumstances to not permit (if they did I would have already been all over it).

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

It's hard to believe that

so many of these lefties are shills or disinfo agents. I really have a hard time accepting that, though it may be true.
Could be they have just gotten used to being "leaders" or always feeling that they are right. In this case, they may have assumed several years ago that 9/11 would eventually just go away, so now they are stuck with a pride thing about admitting they were wrong.
Whatever the case, I think we should focus on these people more, and Raimondo may be a good place to start.
Chomsky is too hard to reach and he is getting old. Cockburn is so shrill and often unreasonable. Raimondo is neither, far as I know, and he is really skewered by the contradiction of running an antiwar site that never even mentions the cause of the wars or the controversy surrounding the official story.
I would go see him if I lived nearby. Maybe he will do a phone interview with someone, or even just an email interview. If we understand his point of view, it would help. Cockburn and Chomsky have said what they think and we can all see it is nonsense. I would like to know what Raimondo's thoughts are on this and why he posts nothing about 9/11.

left gate keepers right gatekeepers

Raimondo is a libertarian, NOT a leftist. He is a libertarian antiwar gatekeeper, just like ZNet and Chomsky are leftist antiwar gatekeepers. Why do you think Chomsky, Goodman and Raimondo never seem to pow wow together? Because it would ruin their divide and conquer the antiwar opposition as much as injecting 911 truth into it would.

Most of the well known stuff is fake. That's jsut the way it is. Perps and their friends have a much easier time getting access to audiences than honest truthseekers. That's an undeniably aspect of reality.

Who do you think registered "" before anyone else? some peacenik? Ha! Hahhahahah!


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