A Conspiracy So Immense

Source: www.guatemala-times.com

Naomi Wolf

NEW YORK - Is this the Age of the Conspiracy Theory? Plenty of evidence suggests that we are in something of a golden age for citizen speculation, documentation, and inference that takes shape - usually on the Internet - and spreads virally around the globe. In the process, conspiracy theories are pulled from the margins of public discourse, where they were generally consigned in the past, and sometimes into the very heart of politics.

I learned this by accident. Having written a book about the hijacking of executive power in the United States in the Bush years, I found myself, in researching new developments, stumbling upon conversations online that embrace narratives of behind-the-scenes manipulation.

There are some major themes. A frequent one in the US is that global elites are plotting - via the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations, among others - to establish a "One World Government" dominated by themselves rather than national governments. Sometimes, more folkloric details come into play, broadening the members of this cabal to include the Illuminati, the Freemasons, Rhodes Scholars, or, as always, the Jews.

The hallmarks of this narrative are familiar to anyone who has studied the transmission of certain story categories in times of crisis. In literary terms, this conspiracy theory closely resembles The Protocols of the Elders of Zion , featuring secretive global elite with great power and wicked aims. Historically, there tends to be the same set of themes: fearsome, uncontrolled transformative change led by educated, urbanized cosmopolitans.

Students of Weimar Germany know that sudden dislocations and shocks - rapid urbanization, disruption of traditional family and social ties, loosening of sexual restrictions, and economic collapse - primed many Germans to become receptive to simplistic theories that seemed to address their confusion and offer a larger meaning to their suffering.

Similarly, the "9/11 Truth Movement" asserts that al-Qaeda's attack on the Twin Towers was an "inside job." In the Muslim world, there is a widespread conspiracy theory that the Israelis were behind those attacks, and that all Jews who worked in the buildings stayed home that day.

Usually, conspiracy theories surface where people are poorly educated and a rigorous independent press is lacking. So why are such theories gaining adherents in the US and other affluent democracies nowadays?

Today's explosion of conspiracy theories has been stoked by the same conditions that drove their acceptance in the past: rapid social change and profound economic uncertainty. A clearly designated "enemy" with an unmistakable "plan" is psychologically more comforting than the chaotic evolution of social norms and the workings - or failures - of unfettered capitalism. And, while conspiracy theories are often patently irrational, the questions they address are often healthy, even if the answers are frequently unsourced or just plain wrong.

In seeking answers, these citizens are reacting rationally to irrational realities. Many citizens believe, rightly, that their mass media are failing to investigate and document abuses. Newspapers in most advanced countries are struggling or folding, and investigative reporting is often the first thing they cut. Concentration of media ownership and control further fuels popular mistrust, setting the stage for citizen investigation to enter the vacuum.

Likewise, in an age when corporate lobbyists have a free hand in shaping - if not drafting - public policies, many people believe, again rightly, that their elected officials no longer represent them. Hence their impulse to believe in unseen forces.

Finally, even rational people have become more receptive to certain conspiracy theories because, in the last eight years, we actually have seen some sophisticated conspiracies. The Bush administration conspired to lead Americans and others into an illegal war, using fabricated evidence to do so. Is it any wonder, then, that so many rational people are trying to make sense of a political reality that really has become unusually opaque? When even the 9/11 commissioners renounce their own conclusions (because they were based on evidence derived from torture), is it surprising that many want a second investigation?

Frequently enough, it is citizens digging at the margins of the discourse - pursuing such theories - who report on news that the mainstream media ignores. For example, it took a "conspiracy theorist," Alex Jones, to turn up documentation of microwave technologies to be used by police forces on US citizens. The New Yorker confirmed the story much later - without crediting the original source.

The mainstream media's tendency to avoid checking out or reporting what is actually newsworthy in Internet conspiracy theories partly reflects class bias. Conspiracy theories are seen as vulgar and lowbrow. So even good, critical questions or well-sourced data unearthed by citizen investigators tend to be regarded as radioactive to highly educated formal journalists.

The real problem with this frantic conspiracy theorizing is that it leaves citizens emotionally agitated but without a solid ground of evidence upon which to base their worldview, and without constructive directions in which to turn their emotions. This is why so many threads of discussion turn from potentially interesting citizen speculation to hate speech and paranoia. In a fevered environment, without good editorial validation or tools for sourcing, citizens can be preyed upon and whipped up by demagogues, as we saw in recent weeks at Sarah Palin's rallies after Internet theories painted Barack Obama as a terrorist or in league with terrorists.

We need to change the flow of information in the Internet age. Citizens should be able more easily to leak information, pitch stories, and send leads to mainstream investigative reporters. They should organize new online entities in which they pay a fee for direct investigative reporting, unmediated by corporate pressures. And citizen investigators should be trained in basic journalism: finding good data, confirming stories with two independent sources, using quotes responsibly, and eschewing anonymity - that is, standing by their own bylines, as conventional reporters do.

This is how citizens can be taken - and take themselves - seriously as documenters and investigators of our common situation. In a time of official lies, healthy investigative energy should shed light, not just generate heat.

Naomi Wolf, the author of The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot and Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries, is co-founder of the American Freedom Campaign, a US democracy movement.

compare these statements

Gatekeepers analogous to Noam Chomsky

Dave Lindorff:
None of this would matter except that I think the Left’s embrace of conspiracy-theories has become profoundly damaging to the whole progressive movement. Conspiracy thinking produces a deep cynicism towards positive action and towards the kind of long-term organizing upon which real social and political change depends.

Naomi Wolf:
The real problem with this frantic conspiracy theorizing is that it leaves citizens emotionally agitated but without a solid ground of evidence upon which to base their worldview, and without constructive directions in which to turn their emotions. This is why so many threads of discussion turn from potentially interesting citizen speculation to hate speech and paranoia.

Daily Kos ranks right up there, not intellectually, but...

...the mob mentality of that blog against any discussion concerning conspiratorial elements of various events, or operations, almost makes the site a more powerful gatekeeper than individual members of the intelligentsia.

All of this depends on

what one means by "conspiracy theory." That's the problem with such broad statements as Wolf's essay.

I find the timing of these 2 similar articles curious.

Both Wolf and Lindorff were leaned on by someone who exerted significant pressure.

I love Naomi Wolf. Her book, "The End Of America", is spot on. However, many would consider it the work of a conspiracy theorist.
She said that the recent financial bailout was actually a coup taking place. Many would consider that a conspiracy theory. She was very chummy with Alex Jones on his show as he informed her of things she wasn't aware of. She has said publicly that she believes there should be a new investigation of the events of 9/11. By the way, so has Lindorff. The fact is, conspiracies happen. There are some highly intelligent rational people who are in the 911 Truth Movement. Some have Nobel prizes. Some are from the government. They come from all over the world and all cultures. It is a strong movement built on a solid foundation of facts.

Remember how Saddam Hussein would use innocent women and children to shield the areas where he held anti-aircraft weapons and possibly scuds? It was a chicken shit tactic, but it was effective. I think there are some individuals who use the cry of antisemitism to shield their own wrongdoing. This is another chicken shit tactic that has heretofore been effective.

People are people. If someone does something wrong, I will call them out on it, no matter who they are. Each individual will be judged according to his actions, nothing else. All people are capable of the gamut of behaviors. Nothing is sacred. There is no shield from the truth.

Alex Jones definitely schooled Wolf

in that interview. She seemed completely blow away by what A.J. knows, with Wolf needing him to slow down because he was going to fast for her to keep up. Yes, she was really chummy w/ A.J. If she is indeed trying to educate the 9/11 Truth Movement it appears it should actually be the other way around.

to clarify the last part of my above statement

There are some who want to paint the 911 Truth Movement as anti semitic. It is not. There are people of all cultures involved on both sides of the issue. The hyper-vigilance to expose anti semitism is understandable and valid. However, some of the perpetrators of 911 are trying to use that hyper-vigilance and sensitivity to their advantage. The perpetrators of 911 will use any tool they deem effective to discredit the 911 Truth Movement. These perpetrators are individuals. They don't represent any cultural or religious group. They are just ruthless criminals, which come in all sizes and shapes and from all backgrounds. Each of these individuals will be exposed as individuals and not representative of any cultural groups.

Is this damage control or clarification?

Seems interesting that this came out right after the We Are Change interview with her. But I can't make heads or tails out of her position here. Either we are looking for something psychologically more comforting or we are taking part in some healthy investigating. Which is it??

Care to change your assessment of the WAC interview?

There was a groundswell of support for Ms. Wolf re. her We Are Change interview, posted on this blog on Weds. 10/29.

Metallus2 said: "So what if she doesn't have a theory, she just made clear she is with us!"

Constitutional911 said: "I think she is leaning towards our side. There's a good chance she will make a leap towards the truth movement."

Pachamama said: "it's her right to choose how she wants to portray herself."

Metamars said: "It just doesn't always pay to be forthright with one's beliefs. Even if Naomi Wolf is a "public intellectual", she is also an activist, and realizes that she needs to influence politicians on the one hand, and a heterogeneous population on the other, some of whom will react emotionally and negatively if she "just comes out with it".

John Doraemi said: "Naomi Wolf was competent, cautious, and on the right side. What more do you people want?"

peaceful warrior said: "Naomi Wolf is a great patriot....As someone who is in a somewhat delicate position it's important not to " have a public theory" .

911Peacenik said: "Naomi has written two books about fascism in America and the Police State (one of your favorite topics) while raising a couple of kids as a single mother. That's a huge contribution. If you're so sure about your theories, where's your book? Who's really "wimping out?"

Now that she's had the chance to express herself in writing, carefully editing and revising to get the tone just right, would anyone care to revise their opinions on what an asset she is to 9/11 Truth?

Turns out Ms. Wolf DOES have theories, and they include "conspiracy theories surface where people are poorly educated," and "so many threads of discussion turn from potentially interesting citizen speculation to hate speech and paranoia," and [conspiracy theorists were] "receptive to simplistic theories that seemed to address their confusion and offer a larger meaning to their suffering."

Yes, Ms. Wolf, it is true "that explosion of conspiracy theories has been stoked by the same conditions that drove their acceptance in the past," but it is not the conditions you think. The condition is that:


It seems like the truth movement has a self-esteem problem. We're like unwanted step-children hoping someone throws us a bone, ready to excuse and praise those who shun us.

We have our own great writers and patriots, and it's time we call our "public intellectuals" to a higher standard. She is a Rhodes Scholar -- do you really believe all of us have been able to figure this out and she has not?

WAC interview was positive

Sheila, you make some interesting points. But to answer your question directly, no I have no intention of changing my assessment of the WAC interview. It is Naomi who appears to be changing/clarifying her views.

At least I can be grateful...

that there is a higher level of discourse on this site than on InfoWars. The video of the equivocating Ms. Wolf was posted there, and all the commenters had to say was "she's hot."

I'm getting a little tired...

Of people's memories. No one remembers how 9/11 has been used. No one remembers every time Scott McClellan used 9/11 to justify Iraq during the White House Press Conferences. No one remembers every time Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc... etc... etc... used 9/11 to justify everything it is that they've done. No one remembers that 9/11 STARTED the "War On Terror." No one seems to understand that if the event that has been used as the justification for EVERYTHING that's happened since wasn't what we were led to believe, then we NEED TO KNOW ABOUT IT, AND WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT IT NOW!!!

I'm getting VERY tired of people's selective memories. We're only living in an era NAMED after that day... the "Post-9/11 World."

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Only the ones that are true

Michael Moore once said (more or less), "The only conspiracy theories I believe, are the one that are true". Happy Halloween folks- it's been a very long eight years, and we still have some distance yet to go. It's normal for all the jitters on election day (I mean Halloween). Justice will prevail- we won't pass on this one!

Patronizing Much?

Wolf presents "conspiracy theories" (what, all of them?) as the product of a confused and ignorant citizenry grasping for answers in an atmosphere of deceit. On the contrary, the only people confused about this issue are Wolf and her ilk -- people who refuse to look at the evidence, no matter how compelling. Criticism of a purely conspiratorial world view (illumaniti etc.) is fair, but it is also a completely separate issue; one can embrace all sorts of "structural" analyses while also understanding the role of the "deep state". Indeed, any structural analysis that ignores the significant role of conspiracy in world affairs is not only limited but dangerous. It forces us to accept paradigms which are clearly inaccurate. You would think that after the exposure of Gladio the left would be particularly attuned to these dangers; alas, conspiracy-phobia continues to rule the day.

Spot On!

I'm happy to hear from Wolf on this topic along with others. However, she's got to get her head screwed on a little bit straighter if she is going to start preaching to the Truth Movement. Granted, the Truth Movement is not completely unified in all of its ideas, intentions and goals, but certainly the cream has risen to the top, and floating above all of the passion for Truth is a stable coagulation which is anything but a "Conspiracy Theory." We are now at a point were there is a large mass of intelligent and somewhat influential group of people who have identified a group of global elites who have not only exemplified a subversive plot, with documentation and testimony to prove it (with proper fact checking and all of our t's crossed and our i's dotted) but they have on many occasions spoken openly of such a plan - via the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations, among others - in order to establish a "One World Government" dominated by themselves rather than national governments. The formation of the European Union is the most blatant example of this. At this point to deny that the Council of Foreign Relations has been the main contributing factor to US Domestic and Foreign Policy is simply naive. One needs to only pay a visit to the place on Park Avenue and 65th Street in NYC and see their annals filled with Government insiders and policy writers. No other Institution comes close to what the Council on Foreign Relations has contributed to the US Government and World economy. Along with the Bilderberg Group and and few other Round Table groups, the true power structure of the world and especially our beloved USA is finally absolutely clear. The time of "Theory" is over Miss Wolf.

Miss Wolf, you should accept your position of bringing up the rear and be happy that your on board with the Revolution. Miss Wolf, we didn't get this far because we are a bunch of retards. In fact we are the ones who have brought this information to you. And finally, I apologize for being too direct but you need to read up a bit on the differences between Capitalism and Monopoly. Your continued misrepresentation of Capitalism is beginning to make you sound, shall I say it, stupid. This is important because in the past we had the Slave Revolution, then the Peasant Revolution, this time around it is the Intelligence Revolution.

Blow back

It's obvious, now, that Naomi is a "blow back" theorist when it comes to 9/11. I used to be one, too, and the arguments and concerns of blow back theorists are valid and important. Everyone should read Kevin Ryan's succinct response at the original link to this - he nails it. It's frustrating listening to her because she's a bright, articulate woman fighting a cause very much aligned to our cause. But for whatever reasons (not the least of which her being Jewish and having spent a lifetime being the object of antisemitism), she is deeply entrenched and she's going to be a hard nut to crack. But unlike Chomsky and others of their ilk, she throws us a few bones and dare I say genuine support, at least regarding our intent. So what do we do with her? Anyone who wants to confront her better be as well read and well sourced on her thesis comparing USA to Nazi Germany, or she won't take you seriously. In that regard she's as much of an intellectual snob as those she criticizes. She's a social theorist -- and a good one, but that doesn't make her right. Hopefully, someday she'll be cornered by a Chosssudovski or a MacQueen and won't be able to wiggle out of a challenge so easily. In the meantime, let's not take it personally, and build on the areas where we agree, which are many and very significant. And she's right about the need for us to hone our journalism and investigative skills in the absence of mainstream media inquiry. I think this suggestion is her way of saying "Give me some better facts and I'll listen to you." Of course, many people have uncovered some important facts, but she chooses not to seek them out on her own. She's got her own "schtick" and we want her to endorse our "schtick" and I don't think it's going to happen tomorrow.

One thing she said really bothers me:

"A clearly designated "enemy" with an unmistakable "plan" is psychologically more comforting than the chaotic evolution of social norms and the workings - or failures - of unfettered capitalism."

This is the mechanism of the Bush Doctrine used to get us into war and she is turning it around to describe us. In purely sociological terms, she's not wrong -- in some ways it can be applied to us. But I am dumbfounded that she hasn't examined that philosophy regarding Bush & Co., especially since three paragraphs later she admits that "The Bush administration conspired to lead Americans and others into an illegal war, using fabricated evidence to do so."

I think we should just leave her alone and let her figure it out on her own.

Thanks, Jon, for the very timely post.

Conspiracy bedtime story

This bit about how we have a psychological need to believe in conspiracies because they are so "comforting" absolutely defies reason. In an article in the Rock Creek Free Press in June, I wrote:

"Speaking of 9/11 truthers, Manuel Garcia of Counterpunch (Sep. 9, 2006) makes accusations of “wild theories fueled by paranoia,” and states that “conspiracists” “cannot accept” the real reasons for the attack, and instead must “find comfort” in an irrational hypothesis.

"Sure, Manuel. It’s much too scary to believe that we were attacked by bearded men hiding in caves nine time zones away. It’s so much more soothing to believe it was our own government, the nexus of which is located just down the road, and which, at its discretion, can label me a terrorist and lock me up indefinitely. It makes me feel so warm and cozy that I tell it to my kids as their bedtime story."


warm and cozy?

"It makes me feel so warm and cozy that I tell it to my kids as their bedtime story."

I know, its weird.

Garcia's position was echoed a few months later in Christopher Hayes New Yorker piece, The Roots of Paranoia. Ultimately, I think there is a subconscious fear in MSM that we might be right and that they were duped. Bigshot journalists don't like to be fooled, and like it even less when the average person is the one to point it out. I also think that we confuse them because our position requires a paradigm shift that they can't wrap their heads around and further, they mistake or misinterpret our zeal and confidence for "comfort," something that even the anti-war/anti-bush movements can't match, which is their reference point in their understanding of dissent.

William Colby said: "The CIA controls everyone...

...of any significance in the major media."

Colby died under very suspicious circumstances.*

I think that tells us all we need to know about why so called professional journalists are parroting the White House talking points on 9/11. They're owned.


* Colby died in a suspicous drowning accident in 1996, just after he had become an editor of an important financial newsletter, Strategic Investment, which covered the Vince Foster "suicide" in detail. Its editors hired three renowned handwriting experts to investigate Foster's suicide note, which hadn't been found when his briefcase was first searched, but later materialized, torn into pieces, with no fingerprints on any of the pieces. Upon comparing this document with others of Foster's writings, these experts declared it was a forgery, and a not very good one at that.

Colby supposedly decided to go canoeing alone one night, without the life jacket he always wore, and left the house unlocked, the computer on, and dinner half-eaten on the table. His canoe was found on April 27, and although the entire area was searched several times, his body wasn't found until May 6, just 20 yards from where the canoe had been found ten days earlier.

Conspiracy Theory?

The only "Conspiracy Theory" I am aware of is the official story of what happened on 9/11/2001. 9/11 truth is not a theory but a fact. The laws of physics did not take a day off on 9/11. That 9/11 was an inside job is not a theory but a hard, cold fact.

Well Said, Joe the

9-11 Fact Man. But the sheer idea of it is unfathomable to so many who will need a number of "Aha!" moments that they will never take the time to discover because they are too busy listening to Joe the Plumber on Fox news giving his suddenly sage advice on why we should back one of the two preordained candidates who will perpetuate the military industrial complex and will have little to no effect on the shadow government. The book I am pushing on my friends and acquaintances to get them to say "Aha" is "The 9-11 Mystery Plane: by Mark Gaffney. Last year's CNN video revelation is indisputable and Gaffney makes it even more clear with his investigation that the facts are indisputable about why that unexplained plane is completely incongruent with the official story. I am blown away by that book because it puts a recent major network CNN story and video front and center and backs it up with heavy verifiable research including radar data. I am passing it out to family and friends.



Unfortunately, this piece by Naomi is very troubling.

Unfortunately, this piece by Naomi is very troubling. I have always had much respect for her, and thought she was actually a stronger asset to our movement by not talking about 9/11 Truth directly. However, now I have to wonder if another left gatekeeper has just revealed herself.

Truth Will Prevail

Very disturbing !

As a fan of her work, I find this very disturbing. While some of her comments seem balanced others simply do not. It would appear she is either not as well informed as one would presume she should be or worse yet deliberately misleading people painting with the same wide brush she says is not warranted. Nice work as always Jon, " This is how citizens can be taken - and take themselves - seriously as documenters and investigators of our common situation. In a time of official lies, healthy investigative energy should shed light, not just generate heat." . The Alex Jones comment was a plus but I think we need to keep her on our own "watch list"

The Dog Ate My Homework

This is a classic example of the lazy student's snow-job essay familiar to teachers everywhere; wherein a student writes at space-gobbling length on a subject about which she has clearly done no research, offers no evidence to support her claims, veers wildly off-topic, and draws sweeping conclusions based entirely on her own unexamined preconceptions.
Has Ms. Wolf spent any time at all reviewing materials readily available at AE911Truth, or at pilotsfor911Truth, or at Patriots Question 9/11, or at History Commons' 911 Timeline? Has Ms. Wolf read any of David Ray Griffin's scrupulously researched books? Evidently not.

"Is this the age of conspiracy?" Ms. Wolf asks herself breathlessly, and goes on to answer her own easy-credit, class-assignment with all the inquiring rigor of a sleepwalker rearranging cereal boxes in the dorm kitchen after lights-out. Ms. Wolf condescends to opine that, "In a time of official lies, healthy investigative energy should shed light, not just generate heat." Yet what has Ms. Wolf done in her essay except to "generate heat" (well, tepid air) without the merest effort to expend even a modicum of the "healthy investigative energy" she prescribes for others?

This essay could only have been published on the strength of the author's byline, and Ms. Wolf must have text-messaged it in on her lunch hour. What a dismal, embarrassing performance. Bring up your grades next time, Naomi... try a little research.

"The innocence of the creatures is in inverse proportion to the immorality of the Master." Thomas Pynchon

The Mockingbird is getting nervous..

The only way that a FEW can keep control of a vast MANY is to use media to inform the MANY into thinking the way that the FEW need them to think...IE: that the FEW are actually omnipotent, and more highly educated, and have been "chosen" to be at the top for good reason, and that the MANY should trust the FEW at the top because they have been selected for all the good reasons that the FEW have patiently explained to the MANY because the MANY are obviously far less capable than the FEW, who obviously, belong at the TOP.

So, what are the Mockingbirds going to do when the MANY have developed modern means by which they are now more capable and advanced than the FEW?

Well, the chosen FEW, have to try and convince the MANY that what they have discovered or proven isn't REALLY proven until this information passes the tests established by the FEW to make sure that the information meets certain standards set up by the "chosen" FEW who again, have been "chosen" to be the filters of the MANY, because obviously, there isn't enough collective gray matter spread out amongst the MANY so as to effectively reach the higher calibers of the "chosen" FEW.

Let me say all the above in a different way:

Truth be told, [one of our BIG hang-ups], I'm OK and your'e OK...and we are smart...and most of us don't whore ourselves out to become one of the selected media FEW...who, for obvious reasons, get paid RIDICULOUS amounts of money...money of which aspiring media types DREAM of attaining.

[as though matriculation of family and offspring through high caliber media and Ivy colleges and on into choice media assignments doesn't supply ENOUGH arm twisting and servitude...talk about being slotted...?]

So powerful is this dream of financial reward, or in some other circles, so strong is the need to keep control of the messaging, that they self censor...OR...more alarmingly...do the active censoring, defending or protecting of the FEW in hopes of gaining "cred" to become another one of the FEW because they have been such good little servants. I think that in Rock'N Roll this gang would be called groupies...some of whom can play a little...

Now I need a short time out because I'm going to say a few words that will make me vomit...

..highly educated formal journalists... AAAARRRRRRPPPPPPHHHHHHHH!!!!!

...the pizza tasted so much better when going downhill...

Thankfully I have a bottle of pills that I use when I need to substitute the word "compromised" for "educated"...YIKES...I got to get another refill...its been going around lately...when did JFK get offed?...yeah, mostly since then I'd say.

Anyway, after my silly blathering above, here is what I see Naomi Wolf actually trying to accomplish with this writing, seemingly hoping to become one of the chosen FEW someday....paying the dues...passing the tests...surviving the hazings...keeping message control amongst the FEW...

And ironically its the same basic comment and observation that I made about some of the attendees at the "Alternative Media Truth Emergency Conference" in Santa Rosa [that some still insist is actually Santa Cruz...ahhh those truthers...they just never quit.]

At Santa Cruz, and in many other places throughout corporate and allegedy "indy" media, there is a force, some less obvious, to "herd the truthers" back inside the fences that they have been swarmming past for many years now...these fences have been crushed...and the owners are perplexed. These are the fences and barricades that up until the internet and personal power dedicated to seek the truth [ IE: since the great NAP after the 60s], had been capable enough to restrain the MANY in these dumbed down corrales.

Ms Wolf tries to gather us all together in self loathing regarding our amazing accomplishments. I read that she feels we NEED to feel unproven and unaccomplished BECAUSE our efforts have not yet made it up to the heights of, and indeed past the higher standards of the FEW. And, until we actually accomplish this passage, well, we therefore need to feel unworthy until we can SOMEHOW meet the Mockingbird.


If the truth be told...many of the FEW have also ended up being involved at high levels within an awful lot of the progressive-antiwar-democratic-whatever? activist organizations who, as the Peace Movements are doing to the 9/11 Truth Movement, duplicate the paradigm noted above about how well justified it is that they, the FEW at the top, have been chosen for all the right reasons to be at the top and to guide the MANY back into their corrales...and thusly into our one party system that has two colored uniforms...red and blue.


The Peace Movements think that they are successful and that 9/11 Truth has nothing to do with peace?

That the 9/11 Truth Movement is proving otherwise is shaking the Mockingbird's branch as it looks down upon the splintered corrale.


Its really not all that complicated to observe this happening considering that every day we all go out trying to unwrap the spaghetti in the truckloads of events surrounding the attacks of 9/11/2001...and we are making some solid sense of it all.

This is simply a fantastic thread...an envy of many others should they ever take the chance to read it...and an example of how really good, perceptive intelligent and dedicated are the MANY in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

KUDOS to all...

Sorry Ms Wolf...this gaggle of cats is very, very smart...and we read...something that you might want to look into doing the next time you key some words about the events of 9/11...and we herd very, very badly.

Good try though.

Love, Peace and Progress with:


...just for starters...

Robin Hordon

great analysis Robin

"At Santa Cruz, and in many other places throughout corporate and allegedy "indy" media, there is a force, some less obvious, to "herd the truthers" back inside the fences that they have been swarmming past for many years now...these fences have been crushed...and the owners are perplexed."

I attended the National Conference on Media Reform in June in Minneapolis, and found exactly the same thing. In the piece I wrote for the Creek on this, I said:

"...despite all the populist energy and wide-eyed optimism, it gnawed at me that 9/11 was not mentioned. The only official group questioning 9/11 was Project Censored, the Sonoma State University project that puts out a publication each year on the top 25 most important censored stories. I heard that panels on 9/11 had been proposed, but turned down because they had done one at the last NCMR in Memphis, and taken flack for it from the corporate media.

"So the 2007 conference on media reform upset the corporate media. “Big mistake,” the conference organizers decided. “Let’s make sure we don’t do anything to upset them next time!”

Clintons "just like us"?

Did not Ms. Wolf declare in one of her presentations or interviews that the Clintons--those icons of the corporate DNC establishment--are "just like us"?

That statement should give anyone pause.

She is a diligent student of the history of Nazi fascism and condemns the modern equivalent of the Enabling Act, yet she ignores the obvious parallel of the Reichstag Fire. Why?

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