How the US uses sexual humiliation as a political tool to control the masses

In surreal reasoning, justice Anthony Kennedy explained that this ruling is necessary because the 9/11 bomber could have been stopped for speeding. How would strip searching him have prevented the attack? Did justice Kennedy imagine that plans to blow up the twin towers had been concealed in a body cavity?

Read more:

A subtle change of position?

"Did justice Kennedy imagine that plans to blow up the twin towers had been concealed in a body cavity?"

I understood that Naomi Wolf had no support for 911truth acitivists - but this phrase suggests differently - and inserted in a way that might not draw too much attention to this shift. This is good, even though the import of her article is otherwise chilling.

Not sure

I don't know if I've heard that she has 'no support' for the truth movement. I do know that I was disappointed at one point in the documentary film she released a few years ago, when she hit hard on point after point to draw parallels between the present-day US and fascist regimes of the past--then proceeded to tread gently on the topic of 9/11 itself. She basically gave it the treatment that those of us who've been active on this issue are all too familiar with: chastising the Bush administration for how they (fascistically) exploited the event for their own policy goals, while steering well clear of the issue of whether they may have (fascistically) been complicit in the actual perpetration of the crime which proved to be so convenient for them thus to exploit. Mind you, I don't require that a speaker who ostensibly shares many of the political concerns we have come right out and argue explicitly on behalf of inside job. But I don't think it's asking too much of them to at least indicate, when the subject of 9/11 comes up, that the story we've been told isn't so sound as the authorities would like us to believe, and then leave it up to members of her audience to decide how skeptical they are re the official account, in view of all the other information she's given them regarding the parallels with authoritarian and militarist regimes of the past.

Otherwise, of course, her presentation on that subject was very good. And notwithstanding the disappointment regarding that one point (the same point on which so many supposedly progressive intellectuals are disappointing), I still would not presume from that that she has 'no support' for 9/11 truth activists. Her position (and I'm just guessing here, not playing mind-reader) might be more along the lines of: I'm not against you--but if I'm going to be for you, it's only going to be from a very great distance. Now, if she's narrowing that distance, as you suggest might be, then that would definitely be a good thing.


Something else to keep in mind is that, if I'm not mistaken, The Guardian HAS typically been outright dismissive of 9/11 skepticism. And to whatever degree her views on 9/11 may accord with ours, that would be all the more reason for her to be subtle about it in this article. That's how gatekeeping by the supposedly alternative media works--even in cases where someone in the intelligentsia might not be outright hostile to 9/11 truth, there's the pressure to self-censor, so that they'll continue to 'fit in' among their peers. Just as in the so-called mainstream media.

spot on rm

they must tread lightly or lose status, readership, avoid ridicule & admonishment, and of course that almighty dollar. They set the boundaries for acceptable "public" debate.