Corporate Disobedience: A Shrill Hysteria in the Fascist Press

Crimes of the State Blog

It's not civil disobedience, but corporate disobedience -- upsetting the corporate control paradigm -- that just plain flips out the media oligarchs and their loyal proxies.

"It's not a debate. It's a debate between us. You're in the audience. Audience comes from the Latin, 'to listen'."
--Bill Maher, (confronted by WeAreChange LA regarding his 9/11 censorship

The most powerful weapon the corporate state has is editorial control. The information clampdown is total, on certain topics. No "debate" is allowed, and opposition voices are not permitted to appear despite the validity of their case, or the amount and quality of evidence they can provide. Opposition is routinely written out of history, and it is demonized when it refuses to remain silent.

The Bill Maher case is enlightening, because he not only has taken a position on specific 9/11 issues (the official position), he has also viciously attacked skeptics as somehow mentally inferior, and in need of "Paxil." This as he hosts a debate show that adamantly refuses to debate these topics at all, even as 1/3rd of Americans disagree with Maher's overall view about the attacks [Scripps Poll, July 2006]. One hundred million Americans get no place and no representation at Maher's debate table (while they are slandered without recourse).


Maher's violent response, and the thunderous applause for his belligerence:

"...or do I have to kick this guy's ass outta here? Would you get the fuck out of my building? Out! Out! Out!"

"I'll kick your ass outta here too!"

Maher's display of hostility, rushing into the audience shouting about "kicking" "ass", set the stage for the brutalization of the first man who spoke up. The protestor has told of his physical assault by members of Maher's staff. This does not seem surprising, and yet it seems to be a form of terrorism in and of itself, with the purpose of scaring away potential copycats-

"Once outside the show, on an outdoor balcony, near the ledge, he was taken to the ground roughly. He was handcuffed. Someone put a knee in his back to hold him down. He said they twisted him like a pretzel. It is fortunate he did not have serious injuries." [Inside the Bill Maher "rendition"]

One of Maher's loyal goons then proceeded to taunt the protestor, while he was restrained on the ground-

"This man talked to him on the ground. Told him that he would be in jail all weekend. Told him that some black guy was going to f---- him. Told him the cell will smell like piss."

What was this protestor's crime? Upsetting the corporate control paradigm. When the machine grinds to a halt, heads must roll. This was what Maher himself suggested-

"How come I don't fire my audience department is really the question that is running through my mind right now."

Maher played ignorant, hoping his security staff would solve the problem, until it became apparent that there were more demonstrators still in the auditorium. Then he addressed one point-

"Yeah and you are a nut case, building 7."

Again, there is no debate permitted, and there will not be. It doesn't matter that the government's own investigation has still not been able to explain the "collapse" of building WTC7, six years after the event. We are presumed insane if we dare to question their non-explanation of the matter [NIST: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse." .pdf].


If Maher exposes himself as ignorant, a bully, and a loyal censor for his corporate masters, we may have some gains here.

However, the attack machines have been fired up across the reich wing media.

CNN's answer to Genghis Khan, Glenn Beck, has turned those several people disagreeing and shouting (during corporate production) into "Timothy McVeigh." Beck's website, unbelievably part of CNN, says:

"Bill Maher's nasty spat with some 9/11 conspiracy nut jobs was a nuisance on live TV, but are these conspiracy theorists a menace to society? You bet they are."

Beck's inspiration seems to be this blogger:

"...the 9/11 conspiracy fanatics might themselves turn to violent terrorism to get the attention they so desperately crave. It's easy to laugh at the conspiracists, but it's a grim truth that someone protesting Bill Maher this week might be the next Timothy MacVeigh or Ted Kasinski a few frustrated and ignored years down the road."[Conspiracy Fanatics Invade Bill Maher]

Let's get a little perspective here.

The Bush regime allowed the 9/11 attacks, at a bare minimum, by doing nothing whatsoever to stop them, and they pretended such an attack scenario had never occured to any of them before (a demonstrable lie). This was not just terrorism, but the highest treason against civilians and rescue workers in NY and elsewhere.

The Bush regime was then allowed to cover it up, and to make classified anything they thought might be incriminating. They staffed and sabotaged the "investigation", and they basically got away with mass murder. But that was just Act 1. We're going on Act 4 pretty soon around here ("Anyone can go to Baghdad. Real men go to Tehran.")

With a body count upwards of 1 million civilians (don't look), and a rap sheet too long to bother reading, the corporate press feels confident that the real problem are the handful of protestors who disrupt corporate infotainment as usual.

They have the gall to call us "insane" and future "terrorists," while completely refusing to air any of the damning evidence we have compiled (mostly from their own corporate reportage, long since buried).

They are not allowed to upset the cover up. All they are allowed to do is turn "journalism" on its head, and morph themselves into forked-tongued propagandists.

Worst of the Worst

Buffoon Bill O'Reilly, who's own behavior was famously to shout down his own guests by yelling, "Shut up!" and cutting their microphone feeds, has of course weighed in on the Maher incident-

"Now let me make a prediction here. Driven by crazy websites, the far left in this country is so out-of-control that somebody's going to get hurt. No American has a right to intrude on church services, television programs, or any other private gathering. If authorities don't wise up fast, bad things are going to happen. Wait and see."

Note to O'Reilly: 9/11 isn't a "far left" issue. Numerous people on the right, and plenty more in the center (1/3rd of Americans) do not trust the government -- or you for that matter -- to tell us the truth about these events.

O'Reilly's call for "authorities" to crack down on people exercising their first amendment rights is not surprising. That is classic fascist rhetoric. Free speech does not end once you step onto private property, and the government cannot criminalize talking.

O'Reilly's ominous and cryptic threat, "bad things are going to happen" is to be taken seriously. As part of the demonization process, the 9/11 Truth Movement is vulnerable to agents provocateurs who pretend to be on our side, yet are not. This infiltration and demonization formula is old hat in the US.

COINTELPRO by FBI was actively breaking laws and trying to incite violence in the 1960's anti war movement, and in the black civil rights movement, and in the American Indian movement, and in pretty much any other people's movement that challenges unquestioned state power.

It's no coincidence that masked "Black Bloc" protestors smashed McDonald's and bank windows in the Seattle protests, and that they were clearly allowed to do so by police at the scene. This was likely a provocateur action, designed to generate global negative press in defense of the corporate right to exist. ["This is what Democracy looks like."]

That window smashing displaced thousands of other stories of the event, and helped demonize the activists and to negate their message. State provocateurs have been witnessed in Genoa, Germany, Australia, and elsewhere. Recently in Ottawa, Canada several undercover agents wielding rocks attempted to start a riot.

As far as FOX "News" goes on misreporting 9/11, we have some new evidence from some former Fox employees:

FOX NEWS MEMO: "The so-called 9/11 Commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is its eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both former and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not 'what did he know and when did he know it' stuff. Don't turn this into Watergate."
[Employees Expose FOX NEWS Distortions]

Orders straight from hte top. No discussion, no debate. "Don't turn this into Watergate."

Why on earth not?


Some propagandists are more pathetic than others. You can see what I mean.

Arms merchant General Electric (NBC) and their mouthpiece Carlson, ask "What explains the persistence of these conspiracy theories?"

They then hold a moronic controlled discussion that does not examine one single solitary fact about 9/11. The entire discussion consists of the (apparently) uninformed opinions of the invited gatekeepers. Truly some fake journalism here, and I expect a lot of people to see right through it.

What we have here is conditioning reinforcement. People who already disbelieve that the US government commits terrorism get their bellies rubbed. No investigation of any evidence is permitted. This pattern is being repeated so often now, that I expect the population to be quickly tired of being patronized.

If they're so right about September 11th, why the need to censor all opposing voices?

Tucker Carlson -- feigning both ignorance and disgust -- makes some admissions-

"No one ever talks about it in the mainstream press by the way. (...) We [the media] are hiding. Here's what we're hiding. We're hiding the fact that hundreds of thous-- millions of people -- many millions apparently believe this. (...) Do I believe people are stupid? Sure. (...) This is why we never do this topic on the show because it just upsets me too much. I don't want to know these kinds of facts about America."

Psychobabble is permitted. Documented evidence and facts are not.

Carlson is then forced to admit that his news director is Matt Drudge, who was "outed" elsewhere. Lots of credibility over in Tucker's fantasy land.

Comedian Jon Stewart can have the parting shot on Tucker Carlson:

"Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America."

Carlson's Crossfire show was cancelled shortly after that comment aired.


Not a peep on The Daily Show from any, any of the authoritative authors in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Sin of omission.

Lest we forget that Jon Stewart has allowed a rogue's gallery of war criminals and psychopaths to peddle their books on his show: Ari Fleischer, John Ashcroft, Colin Powell, Andrew Card, Scott McClellan, Richard Perle, Henry Kissinger, John Bolton, John McCain, Madeleine Albright, Christine Whitman, Joseph Lieberman, Zell Miller, former MOSSAD and CIA directors, Bill O'Reilly, and recently Dick Cheney's wife.

Not one 9/11 skeptic on The Daily Show? Where's that memo?


Classic DoubleSpeak

Bill Maher, whether he realizes it or not, is a DoubleSpeaking lowlife.

So, where do we go from here?

I completely understand your position, as you outlined the "Corporate Information Clampdown" very well. There are a ton of restless, frustrated people on this side of the fence but short of some kind of aggressive campaign, a "revolution" in the streets (which will likely lower OUR numbers considerably as a result of a violent / physical conflict), I am curious, what suggestion you might have other than to keep going out there in an attempt to garner more attention and educate the populace. What are your thoughts about the next step to further this cause?

Documenting "Truth Squad" actions and the resulting response and posting those videos for the world to see is writing a history that cannot be disputed. It seems that this is the most effective tool we have right now and I think we have still have ample room to continue to document and publicly publish these events...though the window might start closing down because the Truth Movement has actually been fairly effective.

I watched Naomi Wolf's lecture last night which is why I refer to how much time we might still have...

Know your enemy: The Fascist Blueprint

As long as "aggressive" doesn't...

As long as "aggressive" doesn't mean violent action, I'm with you Stayreal. We must not let violence stain our message, something we must watch for as time goes on. Infiltrators will take this action (violent protest) as they did during the Viet Nam era, unless we prevent it. I don't think Kevin Barrett was well received by rudely interupting David Horowitz last this week, in fact he did harm to his own vital message. Sure, let's get our message out there, but let's be smart about how we do it. We Are Change is doing a great job thus far, but how could they do a better job to attract a non-violent audience and not encourage the goons to infiltrate and spoil the hard earned gains we have made?

Go on the Daily Show! Go on

Go on the Daily Show! Go on the Colbert Report!
They must absolutely be confronted with 9/11 truth. They must be forced to show who they really are. Any action that forces people to lose their illusions about truth on TV are essential. As long as most people have a TV, a country can not really be free. And people must go back in the audience of Maher. And in every show every day! That would be an absolute nightmare for the powers that be! TV viewers must realize that talk on TV is not free, that real normal people like them are banned from talking on TV. And they must realize that show hosts and stars despise the audience and will not tolerate any free participation of the audience.

Read the last genius on this Earth:

Jon Stewart is a modern court jester

From wikipedia

"Political significance

In societies where the Freedom of Speech was not recognized as a right, the court jester - precisely because anything he said was by definition "a jest" and "the uttering of a fool" - could speak frankly on controversial issues in a way in which anyone else would have been severely punished for, and monarchs understood the usefulness of having such a person at their side. Still, even the jester was not entirely immune from punishment, and he needed to walk a thin line and exercise careful judgment in how far he might go - which required him to be far from a "fool" in the modern sense."

I like the Daily Show, but the fact that the program is aired on CNN, goes to show that his jabs at the media and politicians are fairly harmless to the establishment.


And the same goes with "The Colbert Report" and Steve Colbert himself. If these folks were real threats to the established order, their programs would be canceled instantaneously. I have a sickening feeling that Maher's comments right after 9/11 were intentionally designed to get the program (Politically Incorrect) off the aire (ABC) so as to assist in the homogenization of network television in the "post-9/11 world". The fact that he now has a show on HBO is of little importance to the corporate/military masters because those who are the most potential threat (the poor) most likely don't have access to HBO and thus, "real" discussion. I think Politically Incorrect was taken off the aire to curtail real discussion among the "have-nots" and Maher was cognizant of the whole affair.

Dead on the money. The Fool

Dead on the money. The Fool is no fool.

Stewart, Colbert and Maher are pressure valves. If any of them chose to take a hard public look at 9/11 they would be "Rosified" in a heartbeat, and they know it.

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

Quick solution: lets

Quick solution: This might sound crazy but lets convince Britney to be a truther.

In order to do that, you'd

In order to do that, you'd have to first surgically implant a brain in her head.


Great job!

You guys are the best! We're with you in spirit for sure!! Bill Mayer is extremely cowardly it seems to me in not addessing or interviewing 911 Truthers.

Great work

Great work John. This deserves to be on the front page.

"If they're so right about September 11th, why the need to censor all opposing voices?"

If they're so right, why are they afraid to debate? Why are they afraid to have discussion?

treasonist fascist mouthpieces

existed in germany in the 1930`s and they exist in america today,
both aided in bringing down legitimate government ,and propping up political criminals with predictable results. Bill Maher and Tucker Carlson are complicit in the dissemination of disinformation and lies about the 911 mass murder event .
they are treasonists pure and simple. they are as lowly as any fascist shill on the internet grinding one for the false flag mass murderers. treason and fascism has a face .
,many faces, across the political and infotainment spectrum
take names and spread the word to any confused and trusting americans you may know .


Such a faux pas, when you don't double check your links.

The "demonstrable lie" was supposed to go here, but I sent it out incorrect:


Italy Tells of Threat at Genoa Summit

(This LA Times article no longer comes up on their website archives at all, and so I am mirroring it here under Fair Use.)


September 27, 2001

Italy Tells of Threat at Genoa Summit

Plot: Officials there took seriously a report that terrorists would try to crash a plane to kill Bush and other leaders.

From a Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- U.S. and Italian officials were warned in July that Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill President Bush and other leaders by crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized nations, officials said Wednesday.

Italian officials took the reports seriously enough to prompt extraordinary precautions during the July summit of the Group of 8 nations, including closing the airspace over Genoa and stationing antiaircraft guns at the city's airport.

But a U.S. official said that American counter-terrorism experts considered the warning "unsubstantiated."

In either case, the reports suggest that Western governments were aware that terrorists might one day use a hijacked airplane as a suicide weapon--as they did Sept. 11 in attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The Genoa warning was disclosed last week by Italian Deputy Prime Minister Gianfranco Fini. In remarks on a television talk show reported by the Italian news agency ANSA, Fini said: "Many people were ironic about the Italian secret services. But in fact they got the information that there was the possibility of an attack against the U.S. president using an airliner. That's why we closed the airspace and installed the missiles. Those who made cracks should now think a little."

An attack on the summit would have endangered not only President Bush, but also British Prime Minister Tony Blair, French President Jacques Chirac, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin and others.

In an interview published Sept. 21 in the French newspaper Le Figaro, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said his government provided information to the United States about possible attacks on the Genoa summit by Saudi-born terrorist Osama bin Laden. "There was a question of an airplane stuffed with explosives. As a result, precautions were taken."

White House aides refused to comment on the reports. "We just don't talk about security arrangements," spokeswoman Anna Perez said.

But a U.S. official outside the White House said the Genoa reports were received and discounted.

"There were some press reports citing what we subsequently determined was unsubstantiated information," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

In any case, the possibility of suicide hijackings has been known to U.S. counter-terrorism officials for several years.

On Christmas Eve 1994, Algerian terrorists hijacked an Air France Airbus and planned to blow it up over the Eiffel Tower in Paris. French troops stormed the plane as it was refueling in Marseilles and killed the hijackers.

The hijackers' organization, the Armed Islamic Group, is now believed to be part of Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network.

In 1996, a terrorist captured in Manila told Philippine police that Al Qaeda planned to hijack 11 U.S. airliners simultaneously and to fly a plane into CIA headquarters near Washington.

This is perhaps the most important news story of 9/11. It exposes numerous administration lies (that they kept insisting on) about what they knew ... and when they knew it.