Morning Of Paris Attack: Drill For Identical Scenario

PARIS, 2015

Before the Paris attacks of 11/13/15, there was a military drill in the morning, preparing for exactly what happened later on, in the evening.

Now consider the following:

CHARLESTON 2015

A federal active shooter drill was being conducted on the day Dylan Roof shot and killed 9 members of a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina on 6/17/15.

BOSTON 2013

Officials were conducting a large-scale terrorist exercise right across the finish line of the marathon when the Boston Marathon bombing took place on 4/15/13.

OSLO 2011

A few hours before the mass shooting in Oslo by Anders Breivik on July 22, 2011 (7/22/11)  a police emergency squad drill for an identical scenario took place.

MADRID 2004

NATO carried out drills just before the  March 11, 2014 (3/11/14) Madrid train bombings took place.

NEW YORK 2001

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (9-11) took place while a number of federal drills and other exercises were taking place.

These are not the only instances. A little digging reveals that the 7/7 London bombing, Sandy Hook, and many other disasters occurred at the same time drills were running.

True that there are lots of drills being run for all sorts of reasons at any given time, but the coincidence of shootings or bombings following drills that exactly or closely replicate them is a bit too much.

On the other hand, if you concede that these attacks might be staged… or stage-managed….then there is a plausible explanation – the drills provide cover for the government or for government-assisted contractors and operatives who can then blame them on convenient patsies.

Such false-flag terror, envisioned by P2OG and played out during Operation Gladio, is intended to fan the flames of popular anger in the right direction.

 

Trump: Front For Israeli Money-Laundering

Christopher Bollyn, once again proves his worth and shows that Trump is a front for the Sanhedrin:

“Within the political establishment and controlled mass media, the ban on discussing 9-11 truth is universal. A good example can be seen in how two journals described how presidential candidate Donald Trump responded to a very simple question about the events of 9-11.

The first is from David Weigel of The Washington Post:

After his main speech, and after a quick address to his overflow room, Trump stood for 28 minutes of reporter questions. He referred to producers who had covered him before by their first names. He even took two questions from a 9/11 Truth activist, Rick Shaddock, who had somehow made it into the press conference. “As a builder of many skyscrapers, you know they’re built to be strong,” said Shaddock. “Many people have questions about how those towers came down.”

“The World Trade Center?” asked Trump.

“Yeah,” said Shaddock. As he continued, Trump narrowed his eyes, then asked the other three dozen reporters in the room – “Is this guy some kind of conspiracy guy?”

 
IS THIS A FIRE-INDUCED GRAVITY COLLAPSE?

In today’s tightly controlled political discourse, it is forbidden to discuss what really happened on 9-11. Why is that and who does it benefit?

An editor at Mother Jones, a left-leaning magazine from California, which is supported by George Soros, took the exact same position as Donald Trump, calling Shaddock an “outrageous conspiracy theorist” for simply asking an important common-sense question about the explosive “collapses” of the Twin Towers, unexplained events which took the lives of some 2,800 innocent people on 9-11.

Inae Oh, in her article entitled “Want to Meet a 9/11 Truther? Go to a Donald Trump Event,” wrote about Trump’s response to Shaddock, saying, “But he shouldn’t have been all too surprised by Shaddock’s presence. After all, if you’re going to peddle outrageous conspiracy theories, you’re going to attract outrageous conspiracy theorists.”

But, why is discussing 9-11 truth taboo and what does it say about our political predicament? “

More below:

In my recent video, “The Revolution Begins with 9-11 Truth,” I explain why our political leaders will not touch the subject of 9-11 truth:

The government and media have lied about what happened on 9-11, and through their treasonous deceit, our nation was hijacked and taken into two very costly wars, which in reality were wars of aggression. As we slide into the next presidential campaign, with the leading candidates chosen from America’s most notorious criminal families, 9-11 truth is the one issue that is not open for discussion. Our politicians avoid 9-11 truth because the criminal cabal that is behind the 9-11 atrocity and cover-up also controls our mass media and sham elections.”

“So, what does this say about Donald Trump? Trump seems willing to take on all kinds of thorny political issues but won’t go near 9-11 truth. Why won’t he? Why won’t Trump address the most serious political issue of our time? Is he also under the control of the criminal cabal that pulled off 9-11?

Unfortunately, that seems to be the case. Trump is playing a role, apparently the role of the wrecker, but the question remains: why does he avoid 9-11 truth?

One has to remember that Donald Trump has very close business ties with Israelis. There are several high-rise towers that bear his name in Sunny Isles Beach in North Miami that were developed with the Israeli Michael Dezertzov (or Dezer). These obscene high-rise towers were built with Donald Trump being the frontman for Michael Dezertzov, a veteran of the Israeli Air Force who came to the United States in the 1960s. (For more details, see my article, “The Florida Connection”.)

Donald Trump is the frontman for the Israeli Michael Dezertzov (left) and his son Gil (right). Why is Trump working with Israelis and what does that say about his ability to speak freely about what happened on 9-11?

 

 
A PACT WITH THE DEVIL? Donald Trump and his Israeli partners staged a hellish act to burn the mortgage for the Trump towers they had built in North Miami.

The first question that comes to mind when we look at the properties of Dezertzov is: where does the money come from? How does an Israeli come to America and become a wealthy developer without having any visible source of wealth?

Where do all the ill-gotten gains of the Israeli drug cartel go, anyway?

Secondly, the Trump towers in Sunny Isles Beach are right across the street from the Wings store, the Israeli owners of which met with with Israel’s deputy prime minister Ehud Olmert in New York City on September 10, 2001 – the day before 9-11. The logo of the Wings store is the “wings” of the Israeli Air Force. Although Ehud Olmert was then mayor of Jerusalem, the sister city of New York City, his visit was kept secret and out of the news. Why?

 

If Trump were truly a free and patriotic American, he wouldn’t balk or be afraid to address the unanswered questions about 9-11. The fact that he doesn’t discuss 9-11 indicates that he is under the influence/control of those who carried out the false-flag atrocity of 9-11. It seems that his Israeli connections are the most reasonable explanation for his anti-truth position about 9-11.

Sources and Recommended Reading:

“5 things I learned by spending four hours in The Donald Trump Experience” by David Weigel, The Washington Post, July 27, 2015
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/27/5-things-i-learned-by-spending-four-hours-in-the-donald-trump-experience/

“The Florida Connection” by Christopher Bollyn, May 21, 2008
www.bollyn.com/the-florida-connection/

“The Revolution Begins with 9-11 Truth” by Christopher Bollyn, YouTube, July 26, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxmFbPwtT9Y&feature=youtu.be

“Want to Meet a 9/11 Truther? Go to a Donald Trump Event” by Inae Oh, Mother Jones, July 27, 2015
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/07/donald-trump-911-truther

http://bollyn.com/#article_15189

Benazir Bhutto On Osama’s Killing

Michael Rozeff claims that the Taliban, via Fox News, is the only source for the information that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001.

This just isn’t true. Even a glance at Wikipedia would have told Mr. Rozeff (and Mr. Hersh and the rest) just how many people think that Osama died before 2011, if not in 2001. They include Israeli intelligence, Turkish, Pakistani, and Iranian officials, US officials including Madeleine Albright, activists including Tarpley, Lendman, and Napolitano.

Which still doesn’t mean it’s the truth, but it does mean that Rozeff, who apparently spent some time on this story,  either failed to do his research or is engaging in hyperbole.


[I accused Mr. Rozeff of disinformation, but withdraw that, since I haven’t known him to push any other suspect story.

The single most important source for the  story  that Osama was already dead by 2011 is  former Pakistani PM Benazir Bhutto, whose very public statement was followed by dead silence in the major media, including deletion from a BBC transcript, and then, two months later, her assassination. 

Of course, we don’t have to assume that the two events (the statement and her assassination) are connected. We don’t have to conclude that Bhutto was telling the truth.

“Osama 2001” could be disinformation too, but it is not simply or solely Talibani disinformation.

[Note: some of the forums I link to might also contain red herrings and disinformation. So again, regard them as aids, not crutches.]

What is telling for me is that Bhutto’s version reveals not whole-sale complicity  between the Pakistani government and the US government, as Hersh’s suggests (which is implausible, as I previously blogged), but the control of the ISI and the instigation of terrorist activity by sectors of Western intelligence (including CIA, MI6, and Mossad) which is not only highly plausible, it is well-nigh irrefutable.

What does that mean?

It means that encirclement, destabilization, and balkanization of the sub-continent, as I’ve blogged repeatedly, is the real target of the West in its on-going implementation of the globalist agenda of “control of populations” and “control of resources”.

These were goals specifically directed at the “third world”  and they were clearly enunciated by the head of the US Policy Planning Staff, George Kennan, decades ago, in 1948:

Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security.

Now back to the Bhutto statement.

Pravda, May 1, 2008:

[Lila: Pravda is the Russia state organ, so again, caveat lector.]

Benazir Bhutto, who was killed in a suicide attack at the end of 2007 stated in November that the Osama bin Laden, the head of the international terrorist network al-Qaida, had been killed. Bhutto claimed that she even knew the man who had killed the prime suspect of 9/11 terrorist attacks in the USA. According to Bhutto’s words, Bin Laden was killed by Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh – one of those convicted of kidnapping and killing U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl.

Bhutto released that statement on November 2, 2007 in an interview with Al-Jazeera TV channel. Bhutto spoke in English in the program titled Frost Over the World. However, no one paid any attention to her words. Speaking about the enemies, who did not wish to see her back in Pakistan, she said: “Omar Sheikh is the man who murdered Osama bin Laden.”

The video of Bhutto’s interview to Al-Jazeera can be found on YouTube (click to watch the video). The assassinated Pakistani prime minister says the words about Bin Laden’s killer during the second minute of the interview. She stays absolutely calm when she pronounces the names. More than 600,000 people have already viewed the video.

Correspondent David Frost, who interviewed Bhutto, did not even care to ask more questions about the sensational statement. Frost, who is believed to be an experienced journalist, did not even ask Bhutto when Bin Laden was killed.

Benazir Bhutto’s interview to Al-Jazeera received very little attention from the media. There was practically no newspaper in the world who published the news on its front page, although tens of thousands of people discussed the news for two months. It just so happens that even Al-Jazeera messed it up.

There was no official who commented on the information. Not a word was said from the CIA and the FBI. They did not even lift a finger to reject it. Absolute silence. But the U.S. administration promised a reward of 25 million dollars for Bin Laden’s body, dead or alive.

Benazir Bhutto is now dead. She cannot say anything about her sources of information.”

Disinfo.com has this about Omar Sheikh:

If that name, Omar Sheikh, sounds familiar it’s because he was a key figure in some huge stories between 1999 and 2002. His full name is Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, and multiple variations of those names are used to describe him including Omar Sheikh and Saeed Sheikh. Here’s how you may have heard of him:

  • In 1999, Indian Airlines flight 814 was hijacked by Pakistani nationals. In return for the hostages, the hijackers demanded India release the leaders of the ISI (the Pakistani version of the CIA) funded group Harkat-ul-Mujahideen. One of these leaders was Omar Sheikh.
  • In the months before 9/11, using the alias “Mustafa Mohammad Ahmed”, Omar Sheikh transferred at least $100,000 to Mohammad Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers.
  • Omar Sheikh was sentenced to death in 2002 for the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

– See more at: http://disinfo.com/2011/09/the-case-of-benazir-bhuttos-claims-and-osama-bin-ladens-death/#sthash.qYtMdZcL.dpuf

The Disinfo.com post led me to this one, at Little Country Lost. blogspot.com,
which argues that US official pronouncements after December 2001 do show some difference in tone that suggests something significant happened in that time-frame:
There are a few reports from around the world that I found that indicated that Osama bin-Laden had died. One report from a French newspaper said that Osama bin-Laden died on August 23, 2006 of typhoid fever. However, if Benazir Bhutto is to be taken at her word, this report cannot be true because Omar Sheikh has been in Pakistani police custody since February 2002 for the murder of Daniel Pearl.However, some other reports, which seem to make some sense, indicated that Osama bin-Laden died in December 2001. An Egyptian newspaper called al-Wafd published the following article (Volume 15 No 4633) on December 26th, 2001:A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa’da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days ago. He mentioned that 30 of al-Qa’da fighters attended the burial as well as members of his family and some friends from the Taleban. In the farewell ceremony to his final rest guns were fired in the air. The official stated that it is difficult to pinpoint the burial location of bin Laden because according to the Wahhabi tradition no mark is left by the grave. He stressed that it is unlikely that the American forces would ever uncover any traces of bin Laden.If the funeral took place 10 days before this article was published in al-Wafd and The Observer of Pakistan, this would put the death of Osama bin-Laden around the 16th or 17th of December 2001. Israeli intelligence officials also told reporters in October 2002 that they and United States officials believe that Osama bin-Laden had been killed in December 2001.If you look at a timeline of events involving Osama bin-Laden, ignoring the questionable videotapes, there is a noticeable shift in the type of communication Osama bin-Laden has with the world and the rhetoric used by Bush Administration and Pakistani officials in regards to the threat Osama bin-Laden poses starting in the middle of December 2001. Some highlights:

September 15, 2001
President Bush says of bin-Laden, “If he thinks he can hide and run fromtheUnited States and our allies, he will be sorely mistaken.”September 17, 2001 – President Bush says, “I want justice. And there’s an old poster out West, I recall, that says, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.’”November 7, 2001 – Pakistani reporter Hamid Mir interviews Osama bin-Laden in person.November 16, 2001 – Battle of Tora Bora begins.November 25, 2001 – Osama bin-Laden gives his last known public speech to his followers inMilawa, Afghanistan, a villagelocated on the route from Tora Bora to the Pakistani border.November 28, 2001 – Osama bin-Laden reportedly escapes Tora BoraDecember 15, 2001 – Osamabin-Laden’s voice is reportedly intercepted for the last time communicating with his fighters in Tora Bora via his shortwave radioDecember 17, 2001 – US Intelligence and Pentagon officials admit they have lost Osama bin-LadenDecember 17, 2001 – United States declares victory at Tora BoraDecember 26, 2001 – Article about Osama bin-Laden’s funeral is published in Pakistan and Egypt. The funeral allegedly takes place about 10 days earlier. The article is also discussed by Fox News.December 28, 2001 – President Bush says, “Our objective is more than bin-Laden”January 18, 2002 – Pakistani dictatorPervez Musharraf tells CNN that he believes Osama bin-Ladento be deadJanuary 27, 2002 – Vice President Dick Cheney says that Osama bin-Laden “isn’t that big of a threat. Bin Laden connected to this worldwide organization of terror is a threat.”

January 27, 2002 – White House Chief of Staff Andy Card tells CNN, “”I do not know for a fact that he’s alive. I happen to believe he’s probably alive… Our overall objective is to defeat terrorism, wherever it is around the world. And so, our objective is not to get Osama bin Laden.”

January 29, 2002 – President Bush delivers his first State of the Union address since 9/11. While he labels Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the “axis of evil”, he fails to mention Osama bin-Laden at all.

March 13, 2002 – President Bush says, “Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he’s alive at all… He’s a person who’s now been marginalized.… I just don’t spend that much time on him.… I truly am not that concerned about him.”

April 4, 2002 – Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers says, “The goal has never been to get bin-Laden”

October 14, 2002 – President Bush says, “I don’t know whether bin-Laden is alive or dead”

October 16, 2002Middle East Newsline reports that Israeli Intelligence officials confirmed that Israel and the United States believe Osama bin-Laden was killed in mid-December 2001 during the Tora Bora bombing campaign.

This timeline, with Osama bin-Laden’s death allegedly occurring in the middle of December 2001, makes it possible that Omar Sheikh could have committed the murder. From October 2001 through January 19, 2002, Omar Sheikh was living openly in his home in Lahore, Pakistan. His positions as leader of Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (a Taliban and Osama bin-Laden partner) and ISI agent (the source of funds for Harkat-ul-Mujahideen) would also have given him means for access to Osama bin-Laden.

While it is disturbing that Benazir Bhutto may have revealed that our government has been (and continues to be) lying to us about Osama The Big Bad Wolf, the revelation that his supposed killer was Omar Sheikh raises even more questions than the obvious ‘Who the hell is making and releasing all those Osama bin-Laden videos and for what purpose?'”

The blog makes various suggestions about why both Bhutto and Pearl might have been assassinated and what the implications are if the 2001 allegation really is true, ending with this:

……… How interconnected are the ISI and CIA and could the ISI assist Osama bin-Laden, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, and the Taliban without the knowledge of the CIA?

Why does the Bush Administration want us to think Osama bin-Laden is still alive? How do they personally benefit from this deception more than they would benefit by publicly taking credit for catching Osama bin-Laden?

Here is my answer to that question.

The Obama administration went along with the cover-up, because it gave a rationale for bombing on the borders of India, which instigates more terrorism in India (about which the Rothschild mouthpiece The Guardian is now “warning” (threatening?) ….

which will be conveniently blamed on “Hindu nationalists,” with no word about who is behind the rise of Modi.

If the CIA/Mossad/MI6 are working hand-in-glove with ISI (and elements of RAW) to provoke terrorism, then maybe the real conflict is not along the usual lines touted in the media, which are all horizontal: West vs. Russia; West vs. China; West vs. Islam).

Take a look at the list of unusual military drills I blogged recently.

Taken together with the presence of Western troops in Nepal, for ostensible disaster relief, they give us a picture of the sub-continent entirely encircled by military –  Russia doing exercises WITH China; Russia doing exercises WITH Pakistan (ISI controlled by CIA); the US doing exercises with S. Korea, the Philippines, and Japan, all along the Pacific; the CIA and China (Rothschild-affiliated) controlling drug routes that have major headquarters in Cochin and Goa and Mumbai.

So we have a Rabbi warning of a stock market crash in September 2015; a Chinese feng-shui expert based in Malaysia warning of a crash plus assorted disasters;Rothschild mouth-piece The Guardian warning of terror attacks in India some 6-7 years after Mumbai; the Jewish Super Shemitah Jubilee cycle of seven sevens coming up for completion in 2015; an assortment of military exercises encircling Eurasia; and an exercise on the borders of the US that seems to refer to China

Now think about Hersh floating this “old story” in 2015. Why?

Could it be a distraction from these military drills?

They would include Jade Helm 15, which is nothing at all, according to the major media in the US. Nothing but right-wing paranoia.

Establishment Alternatives Defend Hersh

Michael Rozeff, who believes Hersh is accurate on the Bin Laden story, claims support from four journalists.

He says generalized skepticism about government accounts is not good enough to discount the possibility of a 2011 killing, instead of the rumored 2001 killing.

Fair enough.

However, the problem for me at least is not generalized skepticism of government accounts.

My problem is generalized skepticism of alternative media mouth-pieces attacking the government’s account – I don’t place much stock in the high-profile  Mr. Hersh and his ilk.

Unlike Mr. Roberts, I don’t believe in the theory of a 2001 killing of Obama; but I also don’t believe the government’s OR Hersh’s version.

Until I study the matter at first hand, I refuse to take any account at face-value. The only thing I do believe is that there is no end to the depth and complexity of Anglo-Zionist propaganda and that anyone who goes by party-line, confession, or ideology of any kind, will not be able to untangle the web.

High-profile journalists are suspects numero uno when it comes to intelligence/CIA propaganda.

As I said, Douglas Valentine, Ann Williamson, Paul Craig Roberts, James Petras and the less-known but insightful  Scott Creighton – between them encompassing every side of the alternative spectrum – have expressed cynicism/skepticism about Hersh.

The media fanfare over Hersh’s revelations is itself a giveaway.

Now Rozeff comes up with 4 voices in support of Hersh.

Three of them published their  support on Counterpunch, which has, sorry to say, often retailed disinformation about 9/11 by none other than Alexander Cockburn.  One is published at The Nation, another establishment leftist rag that carries disinformation all the time.

Before he died, I got to know Cockburn a  little bit, with some exchanges over the phone and email. I liked the guy. He said nice things about my writing. I am grateful for that.  I also appreciated his support of India and his love of Indian culture. His Catholic background and his sharp, curious brain made him a different kind of lefty.

But lefty he was….a true believer in feminism, the state, and “the people.”

And on at least two occasions known to me a guy who retailed government spin.

One was on 9/11. The other was on the child-sex abuse scandals of the 1990s.

The latter was a personal disappointment to me, because I relied on his word and his opinion, as an elder statesman on the subject of propaganda and the CIA.

I found later he was wrong on both subjects, but not because he was mistaken.  It was because he was misleading.

I suspected a tie to the CIA. That was confirmed to me later by a senior libertarian writer who ought to know.

So, yes, Cockburn was a good guy on a number of things. A funny, insightful, even great writer.

But he also retailed spin when he felt he had to. I can’t make a judgment about why he did it. I’m just saying he did it.

So Cockburn supporting Hersh is like, well, the Washington Post echoing the New York Times.

Journalist two:

Justin Raimondo supports Hersh.

Well, he also uncritically supported Gore Vidal, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden, about whose bona fides there are persistent serious questions that have never been answered.  If you believe in the official Snowden-Assange story, I assure you, the tooth-fairy will be visiting soon……followed by some property in the Florida panhandle.

Raimondo, alas, is still an establishment alternative.  I have nothing clear-cut against him, but I find his judgment questionable on some things.

The other writers who support Hersh, Michael Brenner and Greg Grandin, are both professors – of international relations and of history – who write for the establishment alternatives – places like The Nation and TomDispatch, whose contributors often overlap.  Both are the usual East Coast left-liberal academic, part of the mandarin industry.  I have zero trust in them.
But no need to worry about Raimondo, Cockburn and the rest. Mr. Hersh can be judged from his own words, no less (Note: this is not an endorsement of the site on which I found Hersh’ words)

Seymour Hersh has admitted that he’s nothing but a liar. It’s okay tho, he only lies when he gives $15, 000 college campus speeches or gives talks for the ACLU and that sort of thing, he assures us he never lies in print (a liar who says ‘believe me’…funny.)

In a recent interview, Hersh said the following in regards to his fibbing:

“Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people…I can?t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say.?

and when Hersh changes names, dates, places, and the like:

?I defend that totally…I find that totally not inconsistent with anything I do professionally. I?m just communicating another reality that I know, that for a lot of reasons having to do with, basically, someone else?s ass, I?m not writing about it.?

Hersh is merely “communicating another reality” that he knows of?! Outrageous. It’s okay tho, he still stands by his practice of lying in speeches and on talk shows and such, he just promises he never lies in print (whew, and thought we were dealing with a FULL time liar here, as long as he’s only a liar 80% of the time, it’s okay I guess.)

Hersh puts it out on the table, and in doing so he let’s us all know that nothing he says can be trusted.”

So here we have a guy who makes up names and events to convey his own reality (kind of like Rumsfeld?). A guy who rides entirely on reputation for his credibility since many of his lengthy pieces contain nothing more than a single anonymous source.  A guy whom one investigative journalist told me actually squashed an important expose (of George Soros) by a colleague and then plagiarized the material.  And people take him at face-value as more credible than “the government.”

When will boobus libertarianus wake up to the fact that the “media” and the “alternative press” ARE  the government? Often they are more the government than the “government.”

But that might require something a little bit more than slogans and herd behaviour.

It might involve – heaven forfend- a little critical thinking.

 

 

 

 

Facebook page of Sam Bacile

Policymic managed to capture the Facebook page of Sam Bacile, before it was deleted:

“There was until Wednesday a Facebook page (since deleted) belonging to a “Sam Bassel,” that described the account owner as a “movie-maker” in Hollywood, California. The first activity on the account is dated September 7, and is a comment in Arabic on a Facebook post about Terry Jones:

A crude Google Chrome translation of the text reads:

Several Facebook friends of “Bassel” appear to be figures within the Coptic Christian community, including Abba Seraphim El-Suriani, Head of the British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria.

Another post on the page of “Bassel” leads to an essay supposedly written by Mohamed Yousry, the former translator for Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind Egpytian cleric serving a life sentence in the U.S. after being convited in 1996 of plotting terrorist attacks. Yousry himself was later convicted in 2006 of providing material support to terrorism and served prison time. He was released in April 2011. “

Anti-Islamic movie made by convicted Californian fraudster

Update: The Daily Bell is running with this story today, a little late in the day.

( We wrote about Gladio in 2005…..)

Meanwhile, it was  the mainstream media that actually did the best job of putting together the story yesterday.

The alternatives mostly swallowed the “Israeli Jews did it” red herring.

Fortunately, I took my own advice and waited for more reports…

In other words, it’s not a psyop by “Jews”….it might not even be a psyop by “Muslim Brothers” made to look like a psyop by “Jews”.

It could be a psyop by the “Jews” or the “Christians” made to look like a psyop by “Muslim Brothers” made to look like a psyop by “Jews.”

Or even deeper.

I’ve figured out a bit more than this, but I won’t be putting that research on the net. ….

ORIGINAL POST

The hunt for the man behind the offensive anti-Muslim film gets weirder by the hour.

Jeffrey Goldberg at “The Atlantic Wire” writes:

“I asked him who he thought Sam Bacile was. He said that there are about 15 people associated with the making of the film, “Nobody is anything but an active American citizen. They’re from Syria, Turkey, Pakistan, they’re some that are from Egypt. Some are Copts but the vast majority are Evangelical.”

What are we to make of Steve Klein’s assertions? I’m taking everything about this strange and horrible episode with a grain of salt, though I will say that I haven’t seen any proof yet that Sam Bacile is an actual Israeli Jew, or that the name is anything other than a pseudonym. More to come, undoubtedly.”

Just yesterday I posted a piece advising people to take everything in the major media as a psyop.

It turned out to be good advice.

The first reports (see this Guardian piece) said that the  horrible and tragic murder of the American ambassador in Libya, Christopher Stevens, had been triggered by a video made by an Israeli Jew.

Other reports claimed that Bacile was a Coptic Christian Israeli, not a Jew.

But the latest reports tell a different story.

It seems that all the 15 people involved in the making of the inflammatory anti-Islamic movie (“The Innocence of Muslims”) were American citizens and most were Evangelical Christians. Some were Coptics.

It seems that the $5 million that allegedly went into the making of the film produced an amateurish work of questionable values shown for a day at L.A.’s Vine theater.

It seems that Hollywood is a bit puzzled about who Sam Bacile is. He isn’t a known name.

One of the consultants on the film, Steve Klein, turns out to be  a counter-terrorism expert in California, who belongs to an ultra-conservative Christian group. He published a strongly anti-Islamic tract last year.

The Guardian:

Bacile has virtually no footprint in the Hollywood community. The writer-director-producer has no agent listed on the IMDBPro website and no credits on any film or TV production.

Steve Klein, a “consultant” on the film, describes himself as a Vietnam veteran, counter-terrorism expert and board member of an ultra-conservative group, Courageous Christians United. In 2010, he self-published a book, Is Islam compatible with the Constitution?, which assails Islam’s treatment of women.

Bacile was also linked to Morris Sadik, an Egyptian Coptic Christian based in California who runs a small virulently Islamophobic group called the National American Coptic Assembly. He promoted a clip of the film last week.”

Daily Kos has lots more about consultant Steve Klein and his extremist belief that California is dotted with Muslim Brotherhood cells (or Al Qaeda cells, in another version of the story) waiting to explode; who led a hunter-killer team as a Marine in Vietnam, has minuteman ties, and engages in armed confrontations near abortion clinics and Mormon churches.

Another weird twist is that the film was apparently altered unknown to the original actors and writers to convey insults to Islam:

In an even stranger twist, NPR’s Sarah Abdurrahman noticed that every specific reference to Muhammad or Islam in the movie’s trailer appears to be dubbed over what the actors actually said. Without the lines that insult Islam, the trailer “reads like some cheesy Arabian Nights story,” Abdurrahman writes. In a statement given to CNN, the cast and crew of the film said they were “grossly misled” about the movie’s purpose and said they feel “taken advantage of.” One of the film’s actors told Gawker that the cast was told they were acting in a movie called “Dessert Warriors,” and had no idea it would be altered to have an anti-Islam message. She said the film’s director, whom she now plans to sue, said he was Egyptian.

In the latest news, reported at NPR, it turns out that Bacile has been convicted for financial fraud.

“Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, told The Associated Press in an interview outside Los Angeles that he was manager for the company that produced “Innocence of Muslims,” which mocked Muslims and the prophet Mohammed and was implicated in inflaming mobs that attacked U.S. missions in Egypt and Libya. He provided the first details about a shadowy production group behind the film.

Nakoula denied he directed the film and said he knew the self-described filmmaker, Sam Bacile. But the cellphone number that AP contacted Tuesday to reach the filmmaker who identified himself as Sam Bacile traced to the same address near Los Angeles where AP found Nakoula. Federal court papers said Nakoula’s aliases included Nicola Bacily, Erwin Salameh and others.

Nakoula told the AP that he was a Coptic Christian and said the film’s director supported the concerns of Christian Copts about their treatment by Muslims.

Nakoula denied he had posed as Bacile. During a conversation outside his home, he offered his driver’s license to show his identity but kept his thumb over his middle name, Basseley. Records checks by the AP subsequently found it and other connections to the Bacile persona.”

Nakoula isn’t some petty wrong-doer either:

“Nakoula, who talked guardedly about his role, pleaded no contest in 2010 to federal bank fraud charges in California and was ordered to pay more than $790,000 in restitution. He was also sentenced to 21 months in federal prison and ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer.”

And this:

“Nobody is anything but an active American citizen,” Klein told the Atlantic. “They’re from Syria, Turkey, Pakistan, there are some that are from Egypt. Some are Copts but the vast majority are evangelical.”

Klein told the AP that he vowed to help make the movie but warned the filmmaker that “you’re going to be the next Theo van Gogh.” Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after making a film that was perceived as insulting to Islam.

Question: If you make a film with the foreknowledge that it might result in someone being killed, is that an act of incitation?

The NPR piece (above) also tells us that after first considering the killing of the American ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, as an act of mob violence,  US authorities are now looking into whether it was a terrorist attack intended to coincide with 9-11.

I would advise them first to check if this was a staged US-Israeli false-flag intended to justify war and end foreign aid to Muslim countries ( an issue coming up next week).

Note: I think the government should not be aiding any country,  Arab or anything else.

Check out my previous posts on false-flags:

The involvement of the CIA in the Mumbai bombing;

Mossad links to the killing of Bassam Trache, a Syrian doctor in Hungary;

CIA/Mossad involvement in plans to Balkanize India.

Suspected Israeli targeting of Kochi naval base in India

US/Isreli involvement in Stuxnet virus attack on Iran

Mossad killing of a Hamas operative in Dubai using forged passports from other countries

The killing of the Polish prime minister and his entourage

Assange & Anonymous: Sock-Puppet Rebels..

Willy Loman has an impassioned plea to forget the “dissent-chiefs” and official revolutionaries on the left (Greenwald, Ellsberg, Hedges, Cole, Chomsky, Goodman, Assange, Anonymous etc.) and on the right (Ron Paul, Alex Jones, Doug Casey, etc.).

Take what’s good in them, but go beyond.

They are reliable on past conspiracies.  Don’t believe them on present ones, unless confirmed by your own analysis. (Hint: If they support Assange and Anonymous, or keep pointing to the approved activists, think twice).

Light your own fire. Think your own thoughts.

And, follow the facts, not the leader.

Willy Loman::

The rolling psyop known as Julian Assange is not done with us just yet.

After serving as the CIA’s front-man for the distribution of phony intel for a couple years (and getting paid well for it) and then living like a king in an English mansion under “house arrest” for 500 days (while the patsy Bradley Manning is in lock down 24/7), now Julian is getting his very own interview based TV show…….

..Julian Assange lives with a globalist billionaire in the heart of the new imperialist England and he’s going to tell us 99%ers what we should be doing and which “politicians, revolutionaries, intellectuals, artists and visionaries” we should trust and follow.

Anyone else see an inherent problem with that?

With yet another economic collapse just off the horizon and the Occupy Spring taking shape and the entire European continent rioting, you don’t think steering the boiling over dissident movement would be something that the CIA, NSA, and the State Department would be interested in, do you?

If a psyop gets any more obvious than Julian Assange, I haven’t seen it……..

Unfortunately as you know there will be those on the dissident left and right who buy into this shit, believe it or not. Let’s see how our old friend Glenn Greenwald writes about it.

“A WikiLeaks press release states, “‘The World Tomorrow’ is a collection of twelve interviews featuring an eclectic range of guests, who are stamping their mark on the future: politicians, revolutionaries, intellectuals, artists and visionaries. The world’s last five years have been marked by an unrelenting series of economic crises and political upheavals. But they have also given rise to the eruption of revolutionary ferment in the Middle East and to the emergence of new protest movements in the Euro-American world. In Julian’s words, the aim of the show is ‘to capture and present some of this revolutionary spirit to a global audience.’””  RT

[Lila: This is exactly what this Peter Dale Scott article at Lew Rockwell is about. It too lists the activists you should pay attention to.  That’s just what prizes are intended to do – focus your eyes on what the globalists want you to focus on. That is how revolution has been co-opted from the start of scientific state propaganda.]

“Does anyone remember how much we trusted al Jazeera English after their great coverage of the Egyptian protests? Anyone getting the feeling that Russia Today is headed down the same path AJ took right after they earned our trust?

The RT article announcing this weekly psyop is hinting that the proven NSA asset “Anonymous” may be one of his first interviews.

The guest list has not been revealed, but it has been hinted that the first guest will be someone controversial. A tweet from the WikiLeaks account asks provocatively, “Any bets on who The World Tomorrow’s first mystery guest(s) are?” It then adds the hashtag “#ExpectAssange” — a play on the Anonymous slogan, “Expect us.” RT

“For those of you who don’t understand how these games are played, I’ll give you an example. If a law enforcement agency wants to get a new man on the inside of an organization, say a mob organization, what they do is they have someone who is already on the inside vouch for him. Someone with “street cred” so to speak. This is the same thing they do when trying to influence movements of different types.

Take for instance the Truth Movement (or what’s left of it). You have a fake “truther” named Jon Gold. His idea of the “truth” of 9/11 is whatever George Bush and Dick Cheney told us… plus.. “foreknowledge”… well, foreknowledge minus insider trading which he doesn’t think took place. Well, you have that guy (which no real Truth advocate believes for a second) write a book and then you get Sibel Edmunds of Boiling Frogs to stand beside him claiming he is the real deal. Then Gold promotes Sibel’s LIHOPy book and BINGO… you have the APPEARANCE of a consensus in the hijacked movement.

See how that works? One fake vouches for another fake. Jon and Sibel = Julian and “Anonymous”

[Lila: To give Sibel Edmonds credit, she is a lot more credible to me than the others. She is after all a brave person and a whistle-blower who has called out a lot of the lazy activism of another very well-heeled, “comfortable” group, Antiwar. Edmonds seems to be reliable until she gets to 9/11 and she falls silent about Hank Greenberg, as do most Republican activists. But other than that, I don’t feel she belongs in this group. I feel she’s been forced to join them.]

In the world of organized crime, this kind of game can be a bit dangerous. In the world of crime fighting this can be very very dangerous. But in the world of dissident movements, what’s the risk? Remember that guy who was busted infiltrating that movement down in New Orleans? What happened to him? Nothing. He went on after he was exposed to start some new assignment and that was the end of it. What happened to Nurse Nariah (whatever her name was) or that guy who pretended to be the “Gay Girl from Damascus” or “Syrian Danny” once they were all exposed?

This is how they work.

Right now we are on the edge of a massive popular uprising and it just so happens that their two most successful psyops are about to go on one of the most respected news outlets left to us to tell us what to do.

Get it?

Assange himself says in the trailer for the show, “Today we’re on a quest for revolutionary ideas that can change the world tomorrow.” RT

oooooo…. Julian himself tells us what to do…. oh I can’t wait… and “Anonymous” will be there too? And it’s on RT? Well hell, that must be legit.

If you notice though, at the end of the RT article, they seem to be presenting a little disclaimer. Turns out RT didn’t produce this CIA/State Department psyop… some “independent” company out of London produced it. I wonder if it is owned by the same globalist billionaire who is letting Julian live in his mansion while under “house arrest”

“A press release for the show, however, emphasizes that it was put together by an independent UK producer and that RT is merely serving as the initial broadcaster. Negotiations are presently underway with other possible licensees, who might broadcast longer versions of the same interviews.” RT

Seems like RT is already making sure they can distance themselves from this psyop even before it launches it’s first installment……

John Young of Cryptome said years ago that he knew Assange and Wikileaks was a CIA honeypot from the start and he was correct.

Now they are trying to cash in on his “street cred”, street cred that was given (“given”.. not earned) him by the likes of Amy Goodman, Glenn Greenwald, and Daniel Ellsberg.If you still that that is a group of true dissidents, I can’t help you.

[Lila: So what does that make Peter Dale Scott who points to the dissent-chiefs?]

All I can say about this State Department infomercial is: Don’t believe it folks and don’t watch it.

Let them know via their own ratings tools that we can’t be fooled by their Disneyesque smoke and mirrors.

The PR and influence peddling institutions think they’re the real power behind this country and time and time again they’re proven wrong but they just keep plugging away telling themselves they are smarter than all of us. They’re not.

If you don’t take the hint from me, take a cue from the RT article… there’s a REASON they posted the disclaimer in their press announcement and the article about the show. RT is trying to tell you something. The reason is… it’s BULLSHIT.

Don’t watch the show. Tell others its bullshit. Make sure Julian and his NSA handlers get the rotten tomatoes ratings they deserve.

No more Syrian Danny no more Gay Girl no more Julian of the Mansion. We’ve outgrown it. We’re tired of the bullshit. That’s it.

This is going to be our revolution and NOTHING they do is going to hijack it.

Whomever he puts on that fraud of a show of his is suspect. Whoever is on that show of his is just as much of a fraud as he is.

We saw through Invisible Children and Kony 2012 in record time (less than a day I believe) and we will see.. through.. this.. too.

No prepackaged heroes, no ready-made leaders. It’s ham-handed and obvious and we are too tired and angry to fall for this shit.”

Paul-Lehrman Connection Meaningless, Says Daily Bell (Corrections Added)

Update: Subsequent to my posting this, the Agora disinfo agent/troll/paid basher Ryals reposts Amberger’s comments to him (rather than Amberger’s blog posts about Agora), simultaneously discrediting and neutralizing Amberger by an unsubstantiated smear (Nazi Stasi), just as he posts any substantial criticism of Agora, ALWAYS with slurs about the critics and always with OLD NEWS about Agora, usually attributing criminal behavior to the critics, for which he gives not a shred of proof.

His response fails to mention the people who really are responsible for Agora’s marketing and selling today – Myles Norin (CEO), Matthew Turner (counsel), Addison Wiggin (chief of Agora Financial, its flagship subsidiary, and also heavily involved in Oxford Group, Michael Masterson (Mark Ford), Byron King, Alexander Greene, Mike Ward, Julia Guth, and many others, whose border-line promotions were all deconstructed by Christoph Amberger. Instead, Ryals tries to discredit Amberger’s whistle-blowing. No question Ryals has some kind of tie to Agora.

To make things clearer, Agora is not solely Bonner’s company but owned by several people, some of whom no doubt have axes to grind with others. Bonner himself might have enemies within the company, for partisan, financial or personal reasons.

Notice how Ryals only focuses on the Republicans in the group, like Bonner, presumably Casey, and Robert Bauman, who specializes in the admirable field of asset protection. Now, unlike the state-worshipping fraud Ryals,  I would love to believe Bob Bauman is a really good asset protector (aka money-launderer), but, alas, if he is not what he seems (and I haven’t seen anything concrete to suggest that), he is much more likely to be an IRS/DOJ honey-pot, if I know how these things work.

That’s what I believe large parts of the  asset-protection racket really is about, when it’s not about espionage and government-related money-laundering.

That might include the over-hyped Simon Black, who also seems to be a part of the LRC-Agora crew and constantly tells people that Singapore is a great place for financial security, when anyone who even researches the matter in a skimpy way will figure out that Singapore is crawling with Mossad and CIA.

NWO resistance indeed.

Anyone boosting simplistic asset protection, or simplistic encryption like Tor (heavens!) is simply pushing people into US govt supervised encryption. But, then, maybe that’s the idea.

ORIGINAL POST

The Daily Bell argues that the Ron Paul-Lewis Lehrman connection is meaningless (links to follow):

“Worse, in our humble opinion, whenever such issues arise these days, the dissemblers come out in force to attack the world’s only apparently honest politician, US Congressman Ron Paul, for working with Lewis Lehrman.

It is true that when Ron Paul and Lewis Lehrman served (with many others) on a US Gold Commission during the Reagan years they wrote a minority report recommending a return to some sort of gold standard.

But Ron Paul certainly didn’t seek Lehrman out to write the report. He wrote it with Lehrman because Lehrman was on the committee. Ron Paul, of course, went on to call for a regime of competing currencies, which is something we’re partial to.”

Comment:

This would be a whole lot more credible if  The Daily Bell itself didn’t call out people on just as tenuous evidence, in much more black and white terms than I have ever done.

It also doesn’t help that the Bell dismisses critics of Paul as dissemblers.

Why?

What’s wrong with criticizing a politician who’s set up as the sole spokesman for libertarian issues?

Why would anti-state capitalists focus on a politician as their spokesman, in the first place?

What sense does that make?

Especially, when just a few days ago, the Bell raised no objection at all, when, in an interview on their site, Gerald Celente claimed Paul was “not a fighter” and had failed because he was not a fighter.

If that is the opinion of Paul’s friends, isn’t it natural that people on the paper-money team or outside the binary altogether (like me) would reach even more devastating conclusions?

I don’t believe most Paul critics are dissembling. I think they are genuinely disappointed and suspicious. I am too.

Three. The Bell loses credibility when it claims Paul is the “only honest politician in the world.”

That’s pure hyperbole.

I’m sure the Daily Bell doesn’t know “all the politicians in the world.” And Paul isn’t perfectly clean. There was rampant nepotism during his campaign. There was the alleged double-billing. There were other mis-steps.

They might all be minor. And the Lehrman connection might be innocuous too, but it’s not the only troubling thing that comes to mind.

Which brings me to my fourth point.

Paul has a long-standing relationship via Murray Rothbard with Agora Inc. and its founder, James Dale Davidson, about which I blogged in July (the first person to pull that little nugget up, I do believe….although, as soon as I say that, I’m sure a dozen quicky sites will pop up with the same information on them).

This is a very troubling connection, in my opinion.

The Agora Inc. network has  ties to Rockefeller-related groups, like the Peterson Institute. I blogged about that in 2009, January.

Now, I myself have once cited research produced by the Peterson.

[It’s in my piece on Krugman, at LRC, and the researcher was Anders Aslund, who was one of the advocates of privatization in the Soviet Union. Aslund was wrong about that,  although not the only one wrong, and certainly not the main one.]

But I post research from all over the place, and that is not an endorsement of the authors’ other works or of the websites carrying the research.

Agora’s ties to the Peterson Institute, however, are a bit more relevant and important than my posting or quoting someone once, casually.

The I.O.U.S.A film (a spin-off from Agora’ “Empire of Debt,” Wiley, 2005) was promoted nationally by the Peterson Institute. Some of the positions Agora supports are consonant with Pete Peterson’s interests, although I do believe most people at Agora are anti-state libertarians, whereas Peterson is no more than a  crony capitalist.

This is what I wrote in my 2009 blog post  about the Peterson connection:

“Assembling this bipartisan group of prominent enablers/theorists of empire over the last twenty years lets IOUSA claim it goes beyond partisanship. In reality it does no such thing. Omitting a context for its arguments, the film actually lends itself to being interpreted in ways quite contradictory to the tenor of the original work. At times it even subverts the book thoroughly.

IOUSA lends itself to a very anti-libertarian, statist moralizing of the debt issue: thus, spendthrift population needs to be forced to save by government. Now that really alarms me. Watch out – forced savings accounts ahead!”

Agora also promotes things like “peak oil,” which I don’t find persuasive, being a long-time believer in the abiotic origin of oil.

These positions are  accompanied by promotions throughout its marketing network from which it stands to gain financially, either directly or indirectly.

That surely calls into question the credibility of the positions of anyone deeply connected to them.

Is Paul connected to them in a serious way?

{Added, August 25: Obviously, Agora has also supported anti-war positions that have not won it popularity, so I should give them credit for that and I do.

But I also recognize that the “anti-war” position has a place in the permissible range of public opinion, as long as on crucial issues and events  antiwar advocates develop laryngitis. This strategy, devised by the intelligence services, ensures that there is “cognitive diversity” among critics of war and the police state that gives the appearance of a “liberal” political culture, while actually permitting them little impact.  It siphons off the energy, time, money, and ambition of perhaps 95% of activists and effectively marginalizes the rest. Zahir Ebrahim has written extensively about this at his depressing but honest website, Project HumanBeingsFirst.]

Besides the tie-in to the establishment via Peterson/Rockefeller and besides the commercial imperative which undermines the sincerity of its positions, there are also Rothschild connections to Agora.

First, Rothschild interests are now directly connected to Rockefeller interests, by a recent merger (which I’ve blogged a couple of times).

Second, there are also direct connections between the Rothschilds and Agora.

I wasn’t sure about some of those, a couple of years ago.

In fact, I thought the allegation that Agora was a Rothschild front was only innuendo concocted at Executive Intelligence Review by ex-Larouchite, Bill Engdahl, who often doesn’t cite his sources and has once picked up leads from me without acknowledgement, likely because I come from the right

That’s why, even though I was disillusioned with Ron Paul by then, I didn’t place much stock in the Engdahl charge, especially when it was picked up on Jennifer Lake’s blog (see this blog post of March 10 2010) and then embellished with a lot of strange errors.  I felt the whole thing had to be some kind of disinformation. I certainly didn’t make any connection to Paul.  I thought it was a ploy to muddy more concrete legal issues. One can’t be prosecuted for being a Rothschild front, after all, but one can discredit one’s detractors by posing as one, since the whole Rothschild conspiracy is beyond the pale for mainstream analysts and writers. In fact, Lake’s silly comments, which I was forced to address because they libeled me, actually damaged the very thing she –  with typical arrogance – thought she was assisting – the public interest. In short, she forced me to state things that tipped off the very people she claimed I was covering for.

That’s why I even thought Agora itself was encouraging the story, a view shared by at least one other credible journalist. For the same reason, I suspect that Tony Ryals, the cyberbully behind all the negative postings about me, isn’t half as insane as he pretends to be. In fact, I think he has indirect ties to Agora himself, since he never mentions the people there who have actual legal responsibility there, like CEO Myles Norin, or their attorney, Matt Turner, or Agora Financial chief, Addison Wiggin, or some of their star traders, like Alan Knuckman.

[Sept 6 – this morning, I checked to find that Ryals’ posts referencing these comments of mine and thus referencing these individuals had been deleted or “disappeared.” Of course, just to make me a liar,  they might pop back. But it’s interesting that it’s impossible to stop Ryals’s libels, when it’s someone like me (or others, who aren’t in charge at Agora or whose crimes, if they committed any, are beyond the statute of limitations, but it’s easy enough to get him to remove comments about the people still there.]

Funnier still, Ryals never mentions a former senior employee, Christoph Amberger, whose blog about the company’s shenanigans (cons would be a better word from what I read) was shut down in 2011. Reportedly, this was after he was paid to keep his silence, that is, hold to a non-disclosure agreement under threat of litigation. All traces of his blog about the company’s marketing deceptions (GreenLaserReviews) were wiped off the net in a matter of days.

Instead of mentioning all this, Ryals, who even corresponded with Amberger (who smacked him down for the troll he is) waffles on about Davidson, who is safely beyond reach of prosecution, and, in any case, seems to have more than paid for any sins by his investigations into the Clinton mafia and his insights into the manipulation of the stock markets; Bonner, who probably has no legal liability, as he’s not an officer of the company, and is too wealthy, too cautious, too smart, and too well-connected to get into trouble anyway; and Stansberry, who is already damaged goods and unlikely to get hurt any worse by innuendo.

But leaving aside intriguing theories about the cyber-underworld in which Ryals and his rants reside, I’m still not sure what the Rothschild connections to Agora really amount to.  The best I can say is I’m much more willing to believe some people there profit from them.

Why did it take me so long to get to that point?

Because it’s only recently (over the last year) that I’ve had the time to dig around and find any kind of credible accounting of how the Rothschild family might be the financial juggernaut they are said to be on conspiracy sites.

[I got there by adding material posted at Project Humanbeingsfirst  to my own research into BCCI (via Engdahl, Skolnik, DeepBlackLies, Yamaguchi.com, Forbes.com, LBMA website and other material.]

Now that I’ve come to think the whole “Rothschild” conspiracy  is something more than fiction, I’ve also begun to look at Ron Paul with a more critical eye.

So that’s where I come from on that.

Now, for my own credibility on the subject, given that I too have a connection to Agora.

This is what I have to say.

Except for the attacks following my pieces on Assange (by an attention-seeking Assange groupie, Tom Usher at RealLiberalChristian) and a legal threat at DailyBell by another fanboy and blatant troll, calling himself Al Kyder, and a couple of other things), one hundred percent of  the negative posts about me on the net stem from this one supposedly crazy person, who seems to have an indirect connection to Agora.

And all the rest of the monitoring/hacking I’ve experienced stem from my fall-out with Agora too.

What was the monitoring/hacking about? Simple.

In 2008, I gave whatever information I had  about certain sensitive issues to responsible journalists and investigators.

There you have it. That’s why their campaign against me didn’t end with the resolution of my IP issues with the company.  In fact,  it’s the reason why the IP issue keeps festering.

Who likes to be joined at the hip to someone who’s outed them? Who likes to know that someone knows what they are capable of?

That is why they are so bent on isolating me, stirring up third parties against me, and minimizing my influence in every way possible.

Since then, I’ve been warned by good people to “leave it alone” or possibly become even more of a target.  And that’s what I’ve tried to do, but it’s not because I’m interested in covering up anything for anyone.

It’s because I see no reason to second-guess the integrity, good faith, and sound judgment of what I’ve been told but take it as solid advice from people who know better than me. And  it’s because I believe more evil than good will come from ignoring that advice.

Especially as there’s another layer of complexity to this story.

Agora Inc. was also the last business association of former CIA director, William Colby, who  seemingly committed suicide some twenty years ago.

I say seemingly, because the suicide theory has been peddled only recently, and only by one of Colby’s sons. No one else believes it and there’s not much evidence for it.

Thus far, the official story has been  that it was an accident.

That sounds just as unlikely to me, as I blogged earlier.

Note: Ryals not only filched the Davidson-Chomsky-Rothbard connection from my blog (posted on July 20), as well as the information about Rees-Mogg’s and Colby’s Le Cercle and Pilgrim connections (which I got by discovering and researching the ISGP.EU site in detail),** he failed to link the post and then tried to pretend that I was covering up something about the Colby killing, when I’d  blogged about it as a murder, long ago, in 2010, and before that, in 2009. In fact, I’d been researching Mockingbird, MKUltra, mind-control, and sex-trauma as early as 2004, for my first book, where I have a couple of chapters on the material.

In 2005 I wrote a piece about former CIA director Stansfield Turner and Operation Gladio. It was around then that I also first heard about about Colby.

The fact that I ended up in the company where Colby once worked is one of those strange coincidences that “intention” pulls out of the universe.

And, far from covering up any of this, I’ve blogged repeatedly about it.

For instance, here’s my comment on an interview of Rees-Mogg there:

Posted by Lila Rajiva on 06/05/10 11:59 AM

Sorry. Colby was Cercle and apparently also Opus Dei …

Posted by Lila Rajiva on 06/05/10 11:55 AM

Rees-Mogg is reportedly a member of Le Cercle and the Pilgrim’s Society, as well as the exclusive Roxburghe club – supposedly a very influential part of the Anglo-American establishment. He was backed by speculator and corporate raider, James Goldsmith, relative and close associate of the Rothschilds.

Allegations are made on the left that Rees-Mogg is closely associated with Richard Mellon Scaife. Rees-Mogg is also closely tied to James Davidson, Bill Bonner, and Agora, through the Strategic Investment newsletter and other publications.

Through SI, he’s also linked to William Colby, ex CIA chief, also a Pilgrim Society member, if I’m not mistaken.

By link, I just mean there exists a relationship. It’s by no means clear how that actually plays out, if at all.

Colby was murdered (?) early 1990s. My best guess is it was related to the opening of CIA files with the Church Committee (much earlier)….and inter departmental fighting that resulted; there’s also a connection to a White House- related paedophilia scandal in Nebraska that got hushed up in a hurry. Some have linked that scandal to CIA mind-control operations but I haven’t seen anything conclusive about it. “

It always seemed plausible to me that Colby’s death was a political assassination, given his involvement in Operation Phoenix and Project Mockingbird, his testimony at the Church Committee hearings, his interest in the Nebraska pedophile ring, and his work for the intelligence-affiliated Nugan Hand bank (which had ties to BCCI).

I learned about Le Cercle and the Pilgrim’s Circle from ISGP.eu, and passed that onto the Bell, as well.

I posted the link to ISGP.eu at the Bell below a July 8, 2010 article

Posted by Lila Rajiva on 07/09/10 12:28 PM

Sorry. Two careless mistakes.

@John Treichler (not Treicher, as posted before).

The site is the Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics (ISGP.eu not ISGPU, as I wrote in a hurry). Written from a very left-wing perspective. Meticulously compiled.

[Note: ISGP eu was up when I posted the link, but googling for it today, I find that the domain is for sale and I find a post at Cryptogon, dating back to January of the same year (2010), saying that the site had disappeared, but that the writer at Cryptogon had saved the information from the google cache in the form of a zip file. However the link he had posted didn’t open to the ISGP.eu file at all. He claimed he had given it to Wikileaks for safe-keeping. I later found it at wikispooks.]

So, that’s my explanation of why the Bell’s dismissal of the Lehrman link isn’t quite enough; why there are other reasons to worry about Paul, such as his connections to Agora; why I was slow to start looking at Paul critically; what Agora’s ties to the Rothschilds might be; and what my connection to the whole business amounts to.

There’s one other thing. The Bell is also a part of the same Agora network to which Paul seems to have ties.

You won’t hear that from them, though.  It’s one of those little omissions that are troubling,  like the repositioning and revisionism that goes on on the site, at times.

For instance, in the same piece on the Lehrman tie, Wile writes that he knew Assange was disinformation right away.

Not so. He got that from me (see these comments below a piece at Infowars.com

as well as these comments below another piece there.

I was perhaps the only rightist anti-neocon to criticize Assange.

Other debunkers were Wayne Madsen (the first on the case) and Bill Engdahl, both on the left.

Neither of those two, by the way, assembled nearly as comprehensive a critique of Wikileaks as I did.

And I know that research had an impact, because  the Guardian ran a piece derived from it shortly after (picking up on the John Shipton lead) and an Australian academic wrote a paper repositioning the cypherpunk association (deconstructed in my pieces) into a narrative more favorable to their man.

Wile relied on that research, as well as material on Gordon Duff’s site, in changing his opinion. Then he exaggerated and ended up with a kind of parody of my criticism of Assange.

This he tends to do, which allows an opening to people like Fed regulator, William Black, whom Wile once made the mistake of criticizing. Black reacted with a petty and surprisingly  personal attack, but, when you distort people’s positions, you have to expect vehement reactions.

Wile’s subtle perception management has even caught the attention of many contributors to the Bell, including pro-Paulian goldbugs like Bionic Mosquito and Leonardo Pisano, as well as paper-money anti-Paulians like FauxCapitalist and Memehunter.

Why does he do it? Most likely as a way for the site to stay viable on the net, while conspiracy mongering, or perhaps, as a way to manage the reactions of readers and associates. Nothing wrong with that, but, still, it’s unsettling and tends to make people suspicious.

It’s why I stopped posting on their forum, despite my gratitude to them. for providing a useful and unusual venue for discussions.

I also do respect Wile’s courage in tackling material people usually avoid for fear of losing their credibility.

So the Bell does get a lot of props from me for bravery and unique content, yes, but I also see them as compromised by their financial ties. The same goes for some other libertarian sites I still read.

Other pluses: Wile is almost always polite and he is not as Eurocentric in his thinking as some others.

I should add that I’m not one of those who think he’s running a limited hang-out himself.  Or, at least, he is doing it less than most.

Some final thoughts:

First, about Colby and Agora.

Colby had so many enemies that it would be hard to narrow down who murdered him, if he was murdered, without a lot more evidence being uncovered. But no one in officialdom or intelligence is likely to want to do that. And only a fool or a martyr would venture into that territory alone.

About the Agora connection (and, through them, to Paul):

Colby’s name appeared on Agora’s long-running Strategic Investments newsletter, with which the Rothschild-related Rees Mogg is/was affiliated, along with long-time anti-tax advocate, electronic counterfeiting (anti-Naked Short Selling) critic, and Forbes/Scaife protege, James Dale Davidson.

Davidson, Rothbard, and Chomsky all worked together in the 1970s, in antiwar activism, which by itself means little or nothing. Many ideological foes make common cause on single issues.

But, it was not “by itself,” as the evidence shows.

At least one of Paul’s writers (the guy who wrote the race realist pamphlets) is directly tied to Agora.

Paul himself has been incessantly promoted by Agora, until very recently, when affiliates and associates began promoting a few anti-Paul libertarians, like Wendy McElroy, N. Stephen Kinsella, and even Stephan Molyneux, who appeared briefly on the Doug Casey website, and then was pushed out.

It was also from Agora Inc. that I first heard of Ron Paul.

Casey, like Jeff Berwick and what looks like a majority of the hard-money community, is himself closely tied to the Agora network by business affiliation.

So also, as I said earlier,  the Daily Bell, with its multiple banking and gold community associations.

These ties may or may not mean anything nefarious, but they would certainly limit what the Bell, or any other libertarian writer in this circle, would be willing or able to say publicly.

Which means I really can’t trust someone in that circle to be too forthcoming about Paul, since they all share business networks.

That is simply common-sense.

Even I have had a hard time writing about Agora’s network, even though all I did was write and do some research there, and the only person I really worked with was Bill Bonner.

To put it as simply as possible for all the trolls who still can’t read my actual words, let alone between my words:

It is difficult to write critically about people with whom you have had personal and professional relationships; who have accessed your personal and business records (illegally).

It is even more difficult when their employees work and live close to where you work and live and they are native-born, while you are an immigrant.

It becomes impossible when the political and economic context is a multi-front global military and economic war, in which your motherland is also involved, and not always as an ally; when the legal and media environment of your adopted country is totalitarian; when your family lives abroad and you are self-employed and modestly well-off, while they have tens of millions of dollars behind them, are connected to intelligence and financial elites, have thousands, if not millions, of subscribers and friends to whom they can outsource their efforts, and when they are marketing, financial, and political players on a global scale.

If that is true of me, how much more is it true of the hard-money community, which is completely encompassed by the Agora network?

I don’t expect any of them to pipe up with anything but support for Ron Paul. They will alienate their business associates, otherwise.

I hope that explains why I don’t think the Bell’s dismissal of the Lehrman tie is sufficient by itself.

I say this as someone who took a long time to open their eyes about Paul.

Which person likes to think they’ve been had? Or, that establishment critics mightn’t be entirely off-base in their criticism of Paul?

As far back as 2008, I heard some mutterings from loyal fans of Paul but said nothing, hoping it was all minor or a mistake.

I even took the part of the LRC crowd against the WSJ in a lengthy blog post.

[As far as that WSJ incident goes, I still stand by the piece ]

In 2010 I spoke up about my dissatisfaction with Paul’s positions at the Daily Bell forum.

I didn’t want to, because I knew Paul supporters would get annoyed by it, but credibility is very important to anyone writing about politics. It should be more important than pleasing the team.

Then, a few people who’ve wanted to discredit me for supporting libertarian positions(albeit nuanced and rather more conservative ones than that of the anarcho-caps), or for criticizing Assange (albeit in a most circumspect and balanced way than his other detractors), or for deconstructing Ron Paul and his libertarian promoters (albeit factually and with respect), have tried to claim that I’m covering up for this or that person.

The truth is exactly the opposite. I’ve been libeled, monitored, and undermined covertly, almost continuously since 2007.  I’ve also been plagiarized repeatedly and marginalized.

I don’t really believe the government was behind any of that, except maybe at a very low level, in so far as some petty operatives might have been employed by my enemies to do the dirty work.

So, there is no cover up on my part. Or paranoia.  What I say is not a lie. It’s not propaganda. It’s not a smear or anything but the most truth it is possible, helpful, and advisable for anyone in my position to speak.

For the umpteenth time, I’m not RAW, nor CIA, nor Jihadi, nor Hindu fascist. I’m just a writer, with a lot of interests, an eclectic background, and too much curiosity and impetuosity for her own good.

It was a meaningful synchronicity that I got involved in the whole business. I don’t say that to promote myself,  create a mystery, or confuse the situation. I say it because that is really how it happened.

There are mysteries of “intention,” “attraction,” and the cycles of time.  And they have nothing to do with “dissembling”, “disinformation,” or “RAW”.

The innuendos by Jennifer Lake, Tony Ryals, and Tom Usher are simply smears, even if they are understandable smears.

There really are more things in earth and heaven, Horatio…

[Added: August 5, 2017, I deleted the link on this page to http://occultview.com/category/astrology because my security software sent me a malware alert for it. You can google the site directly.]

Edward Feser On The Weakness of Rothbard’s Philosophy

[Added, July 4:  In response to a video of Rand on the Middle East, posted at Lew Rockwell.

Yes, Rand was wrong about that.

But that does not diminish the validity of her thinking in other areas, any more than Rothbard’s rightness on foreign policy validates everything else he wrote. Nor is the Middle East the reason the left hates Rand.  It detests her because her appeal to individualism and achievement is perennially powerful and popular.

And it also detests her because she dissected at least a part of the motivation behind much charity/altruism, to which the left insistently appeals.

Now, Rand owes her thought on that subject and other things  to Nietzsche, whom she adapted very originally and powerfully. In turn, Nietzsche, also an original and creative mind, owed his thinking to his studies of Eastern religion, especially Buddhism and Hinduism.

As is the case with Heidegger, Nietzsche, as far as I know, did not properly credit that influence.

(On the other hand, Yeats, also massively influenced by Nietzsche, did….]

In this way, intellectual chicanery/cultural fraud is at the heart of the modernist project.

Imagine if I were to study Christianity surreptitiously, and then go to some state in India where the villagers knew nothing about it and preach about such things as the resurrection of the body, judgement day, the fall, and original sin, passing off these notions as my own original thought, while denigrating the culture from which I took those ideas?

What kind of a fraud would that be?

What kind of damage would that do to the villagers’ understanding of the world at large, and to my own ability to reach valid conclusions about that world?]

Edward Feser on Murray Rothbard as a philosopher:

“I should also make it clear that my low opinion of Rothbard’s philosophical abilities has nothing to do with the particular conclusions he wants to defend. I certainly share his hostility to slavery, socialism, communism, and egalitarian liberalism. I also agree that much of what modern governments do is morally indefensible and that many of the taxes levied by modern governments (maybe even most of them) are unjust. And while I strongly disagree with his claims that government per se is evil and that all taxation is unjust, these are at least philosophically interesting claims. The problem is just that Rothbard seems incapable of giving a philosophically interesting argument for his claims. (Moreover, the claims in question were borrowed by Rothbard from 19th century anarchists like Lysander Spooner, so even where Rothbard is philosophically interesting he isn’t original.)”

Lila: He also borrowed from Rand, indeed, plagiarized her theory of volition, it is said, as well as a dissertation by a student, Barbara Branden. Which might explain why some Rothbardians feel the need to attack Ayn Rand all the time, usually without seeming to have read her very well. It is another way the modern libertarian movement panders to the left – by adopting its superficial reading of Rand, who, while flawed, is a giant next to most of her critics.

Feser goes on to deconstruct Rothbard’s arguments about self-ownership:
“Here, then, is the example. It is Rothbard’s main argument for the thesis of self-ownership, which is, as I have indicated, the very foundation of his moral and political philosophy, without which his moral case against taxation and government totally collapses.
I know of at least three places where he presents it (there may be others): in his book For a New Liberty (first published 1973, revised 1978); in his essay “Justice and Property Rights” (first published 1974, reprinted in his anthology Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays, 2nd edition); and in his main work on moral and political philosophy, The Ethics of Liberty (1982, revised edition published in 1998). In the revised edition of For a New Liberty, the argument begins as follows:
Since each individual must think, learn, value, and choose his or her ends and means in order to survive and flourish, the right to self-ownership gives man the right to perform these vital activities without being hampered and restricted by coercive molestation. Consider, too, the consequences of denying each man the right to own his own person. There are then only two alternatives: either (1) a certain class of people, A, have the right to own another class, B; or (2) everyone has the right to own his own equal quotal share of everyone else. The first alternative implies that while Class A deserves the rights of being human, Class B is in reality subhuman and therefore deserves no such rights. But since they are indeed human beings, the first alternative contradicts itself in denying natural human rights to one set of humans. Moreover, as we shall see, allowing Class A to own Class B means that the former is allowed to exploit, and therefore to live parasitically, at the expense of the latter. But this parasitism itself violates the basic economic requirement for life: production and exchange.” (pp. 28-29)
The rest of the argument attempts to rule out alternative (2) and has its own problems, but I won’t bother with it because the passage quoted is enough for my purposes.
I think this argument is a very bad one; indeed, I think that to anyone with any philosophical training it will be quite obvious that it is bad. And not only is it bad, but given that Rothbard says nothing more in defense of the claims made in this passage (apart from trying to rule out alternative (2)), I think it is clear that the argument fails to be even minimally respectable in the sense described above. I suspect that most readers can immediately see at least some of the problems with it. Here are the ones that occur to me:
1. Even if it were true that “each individual must think, learn, value, and choose his or her ends and means in order to survive and flourish” and that “the right to self-ownership gives man the right to perform these vital activities without being hampered and restricted by coercive molestation,” it just doesn’t follow that anyone has a right to self-ownership. For all Rothbard has shown, we might also be able to think, learn, value, etc. even if we didn’t have any rights at all. (That X could get us Z doesn’t show that Y wouldn’t get it for us too.) Or we might need some rights in order to do these things, but not all the rights entailed by the principle of self-ownership. Or we might really need all the rights entailed by self-ownership, but nevertheless just not have them. After all, the fact that you need something doesn’t entail that you have it, and (as libertarians themselves never tire of pointing out), it certainly doesn’t entail that you have a right to it. For example, wild animals need food to survive, but it doesn’t follow that they have a right to it (indeed, Rothbard himself explicitly denies that animals can have any rights).
Furthermore, why should we grant in the first place that “each individual must think, learn, value, and choose his or her ends and means in order to survive and flourish”? Children survive and flourish very well without choosing most of their means and ends. Some adults are quite happy to let others (parents, a spouse, government officials) choose at least some of their means and ends for them. Many physically or mentally ill people couldn’t possibly survive or flourish unless others chose their means and ends for them. Even a slave or serf could obviously survive and even flourish if his master or lord was of the less brutal sort. And so forth. And if surviving and flourishing are what ground our rights, how could we have a right to suicide or to do anything contrary to our flourishing, as libertarian defenders of the thesis of self-ownership say we do?
Also, why should we grant that respect for each individual’s self-ownership really would ensure every individual’s ability to choose his means and ends, etc.? A leftist might argue that respect for self-ownership would benefit some but leave a great many others destitute and bereft of any interesting range of means or ends to choose from.
Of course, there might be some way a Rothbardian could reply to these objections; I certainly don’t find all of them compelling. But the point is that they are obvious objections to make, and yet Rothbard doesn’t even consider them, much less answer them. Even a brief acknowledgement of some of these objections and a gesture in the direction of a possible reply might have been enough to make the argument minimally respectable, but Rothbard fails to provide even this.
2. The claim that there are “only two alternatives” to denying the thesis of self-ownership is just obviously false. Here are some further alternatives that Rothbard fails to consider:
(a) no one owns anyone, including himself
(b) God owns all of us
(c) one class of people has a right to only partial ownership of another class (e.g. the former class has a right to the labor of the latter class, but may not kill members of the latter class, or refuse to provide for their sustenance, or forbid them from marrying, etc.)
(d) everyone has partial and/or unequal ownership of everyone else (e.g. everyone has an absolute right to bodily integrity, but not to the fruits of his labor, which are commonly owned; or everyone has an absolute right to bodily integrity, and an absolute right only to some percentage of the fruits of his labor, with the rest being commonly owned; or everyone has a presumptive right to bodily integrity, which might be overridden in extreme cases, with a right to a percentage of the fruits of his labor; or the weak and untalented have an absolute right to bodily integrity and to a large percentage of, though not all of, the fruits of their labor while the strong and talented have an absolute right to bodily integrity and to a much smaller percentage of the fruits of their labor; or the strong and talented, unlike the weak and untalented, have only a presumptive right to bodily integrity, which might be overridden if someone desperately needs an organ transplant; and so on and so forth).
Alternative (b) was defended by Locke (for whom talk of self-ownership was really just a kind of shorthand for our stewardship of ourselves before God) and it would also have been endorsed by natural law theorists in the Thomistic tradition. Rothbard explicitly cites both Locke on self-ownership and the Thomistic natural law tradition, so this alternative should have been obvious to him, and yet he fails even to consider it.
Lila: Chesterton has an excellent essay about the uses of the word “own,” but I think anyone with common sense can understand that the meaning of ownership itself varies with the context.
That Rothbard is not reflective about language – a lack of reflection pervasive among certain kinds of libertarians –  is immediately apparent to any reader with the slightest acquaintance with modern literature, let alone semiotics or philosophy.
“Alternative (c) was the standard view taken by defenders of slavery, most of whom would not have endorsed the unqualified ownership of other people implied by Rothbard’s alternative (1). One would think that Rothbard, who fancied himself a historian of ideas, would be aware of this, and yet here again he simply ignores what should have been another obvious possible alternative.
Some version or other of alternative (d) is arguably implicit in the views of many leftists, very few of whom (if any) would really claim that all of us have equal quotal ownership of each other. At the very least, a minimally charitable reading of left-wing arguments about taxation and redistribution would acknowledge that this, rather than Rothbard’s alternative (2), might be what egalitarian leftists are committed to. But Rothbard fails even to consider the possibility. He suggests (later on in the argument, after the passage quoted above) that “communist” ownership by everyone of everyone would entail that no one could take any action whatsoever without the permission of everyone else, but while this might be true under option (2), it would not be true under the less extreme egalitarian possibilities enshrined in (d).
Alternative (a) is one that Rothbard finally did consider – almost a decade after first giving the argument and after once again ignoring this alternative when repeating the argument in “Justice and Property Rights” – in a brief footnote in The Ethics of Liberty. (He attributes it to George Mavrodes, apart from whom, apparently, Rothbard might never have seen the obvious.) Rothbard’s reply to it is to say that “since ownership signifies range of control, this [i.e. no one’s owning anyone, including himself] would mean that no one would be able to do anything, and the human race would quickly vanish.”
But the badness of this argument should also be obvious. While having ownership of something does imply having a range of control over it, having a range of control over it doesn’t imply ownership. I have a certain “range of control” over my neighbor’s flower bed – he couldn’t stop me if I walked over right now and pulled some flowers out of it – but it doesn’t follow that I own it. Animals have a range of control over their environment, but since ownership is a moral category implying the having of certain rights, and animals (by Rothbard’s own admission) have no rights, it follows that they have no ownership of anything. And of course, their lack of ownership of anything hasn’t caused animals as a whole to “vanish,” “quickly” or otherwise, which makes evident the absurdity of Rothbard’s claim that alternative (a) would entail the extinction of the human race.
3. Alternative (1) just obviously doesn’t imply that the members of class B are “subhuman.” Not all defenders of slavery have denied that slaves are fully human; their view is just that some human beings can justly be owned by other ones. Rothbard’s assertion that this “contradicts itself in denying natural human rights to one set of humans” is just blatantly question-begging, since what is at issue is precisely whether there are any natural human rights that might rule out slavery.
4. Rothbard’s claim that the “parasitism” entailed by alternative (1) “violates the basic economic requirement for life: production and exchange” is also just obviously false. Animals do not engage in “production and exchange,” certainly not in the laissez-faire economics sense intended by Rothbard, but they are obviously alive.

In this one brief passage, then, Rothbard commits a host of fallacies and fails even to acknowledge, much less answer, a number of obvious objections that might be raised against his argument. Nor is this some peripheral argument, which might be written off as an uncharacteristic lapse. It served as the foundation of his entire moral and political theory, and was repeated several ti”mes over the course of a decade virtually unaltered. And if things are this bad in the very foundations of his moral and political theory, you can imagine how bad the rest of his philosophical arguments are.”

Comment:

I would also add that  Rothbard’s weaknesses as a thinker are replicated in some of his most fervent acolytes, who substitute sound and fury for depth of reasoning and seem to think incorrect thinking becomes better the more violently it is articulated.

This is not a criticism of  libertarianism as such. A term broad enough to embrace everyone from Tolstoy to Milton Friedman can hardly be criticized as one.  “Libertarianism” cannot be considered a singular movement, however much, for political or marketing reasons, some anarcho-capitalists might try to drag someone like Tolstoy into their fold.

Tolstoy was a libertarian in the way Gandhi was. Profoundly anti-capitalistic. They both believed in voluntary poverty and simplicity and abhorred the complexity of modern life. I doubt either would relish becoming the mascot of the Mises or Bastiat Institutes. To try to ride their reputations for the sake of broadening one’s appeal is intellectually disingenuous.

So I have profound differences with  American-style libertarianism (of the LRC type or of the Reason Magazine type), while supporting LRC’s antiwar and anti-police state positions.

Another point. In things of which  I know something, I can clearly spot the flaws and limitations of Rothbard’s arguments, which makes me think that in areas in which I am uncertain, he must be flawed too.

Anyway, Feser’s points don’t need any great acquaintance with Rothbard’s economic reasoning to follow. They are points that have occurred to me on and off, as I’ve read the great (?) man.

But frankly, my increasing disinterest in Rothbard has grown from more intuitive roots.

First, there is something cocky, smug, and shallow in the writing itself….despite its superficial good humor and sense.

Then, there are the stories of plagiarism – something which intensely prejudices me against a writer. And there are his attacks on writers many would consider his superior, like Ayn Rand and Adam Smith.  I wonder how much of envy lay behind all that.

On the many people whom he knew and taught, he seems to have had a profound influence, which speaks well of him. But I haven’t had the pleasure of knowing him personally, so my judgement must be from what I read of him.

And from reading him, and reading of him,  I get the picture of a shallow, bright, abrasive man, who thought very highly of himself, yet plagiarized often, and covered up the lack of originality by attacking others, attacks that his followers continue, see here,

as well as here.

[Rand was the most famous instance of Rothbard’s plagiarism. But he also borrowed from Spooner, as Feser points out. And a commenter at this blog adds this:

“The first part of his book on the history of American banking drew on a report about the “Suffolk System” published by that bank, but since buried in the archives. After finding a bad microfilm copy at my university library, I paid the Adam Smith Institute to send me a good one. (I also bought one of their neckties.) Rothbard plagiarized heavily from the original Suffolk Banking System and, worse, projected his own anarchist opinions on the facts of history. As a criminologist, I am fully sympathetic to a free market in protection and adjudication, but the fact is that the Suffolk System was not destroyed by the evil machinations of Salmon P. Chase’s Treasury Department.”

So, if Rand has her flaws (and she does), Rothbard has his, analyzed at length in this piece by G. Stolyarov.

Meanwhile, in general power of reasoning, insight into the psychology of the modern mind, and overall influence, frankly, Rothbard cannot hold a candle to Rand, whatever powers he might have as a historian or economist.

There is a reason that the left attacks her, not him.

Obamacare: Bad From Every Angle

David Lindorff at Oped News points out that people on the left should also  be upset by the Supreme Court ruling on Obama care, equating a penalty with a tax. I guess if  the government decides to make  people tattoo 666 on their foreheads, as some maybe not-so-batty-after-all people fear it might, that could be constitutional too.

Not since the commerce clause has there been a  semantic theory so convenient for overreaching executives.

“On the downside for Obama, he goes into the final four months of the election campaign saddled with a decision that says he has raised taxes on some of the nation’s poorest people –– for that is what the court said will be happening, 18 months from now, when the health insurance mandate part of the new Act takes effect, and people who have no employer-provided health plan, and no other kind of coverage, fail to buy a policy for themselves and their families.  They will be socked with a bill by the IRS, and while the Obama administration and supporters of the act in Congress were at pains to say that the payment such people would be hit with would be a fine, the Justices in the majority were adamant that it would be a tax………

..The real losers in the latest Supreme Court decision, however, are the people of the United States. Not those who will be required to go out and buy some over-priced, minimal coverage, rip-off insurance plan offered by the private insurance industry, or to pay a “tax” to the IRS for not doing so, but everyone…”

Comment:

This is just a gift to the insurance industry, probably the industry most responsible for soaring costs in every field.

And it’s a blow to young people, who can often get by with just catastrophic coverage. It also hits people who are fine with self-medicating or using cheaper alternative resources.

Finally, it’s a huge blow to small businesses, the engine of job-growth.

With the economy struggling, you’d think that would be a consideration. But it wasn’t.

People are going to think twice about hiring now.

That means fewer young people are going to find jobs…..

If I were young,  this has  to be the point where I pack my bags, get my passport stamped, and hop onto the first cheap flight out of the country.