Whenever something in the official narrative of the past becomes a sacred cow, you know there’s a lie hidden in plain sight.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, history is propaganda, wrapped in a riddle, wrapped in an enigma.

The enigma of what happened on 9-11 has been deconstructed all over the web, by dozens of intrepid researchers whose combined efforts, red herrings and all, document a coup-d’etat conducted by a network of  spymasters, political leaders, bureaucrats, and ideologues, with the backing of powerful moneyed groups, in the services of a quasi-religious global order.

(Credit to Ahmed El Fikyl for the cover of his book)

To admit this is to admit that the present order rests on lies, issues from lies, and is justified only by further lies.

To admit that is to admit that “blow-back” as an explanation of the push-back from other countries is the impetus for further expansion, disguised as reaction.

This is the point that Zahir Ebrahim has been relentless in stressing, as in his latest piece at Salem-News.com (posted in the comments section of  my post on Irving), which I reproduce in part here:

Zahir Ebrahim, at  Salem-News.com, writes:

“In our generation, it is the pious sanctification of the 9/11 who dunnit narrative now in brazen progress…..”

“9-11,” he argues,  is undergoing the same process of sanctification as the holocaust once did, so that what follows – WW2, in the case of the holocaust, and  WW3 (or 4) in the case of 9-11 – will remain unchallenged.

The benefit of that to maintaining support for the American state’s ongoing war-making is clear for everyone to see. It makes the empire virtuous and just in its aggression, never merely aggressive, expansionist or totalitarian, as it obviously is.

(See: “Washington’s Outrageous Ukraine Double-Standards,” Daniel McAdams).

Ebrahim writes:

“Flushed with unassailable hubris on being on the side of empire in its core Big Lies, the murderers today, their aiders and abettors, assistant stooges and dupes, whether engineering consent or dissent, all well understand that: “All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.”

Since all ideas are relative as already boldly proclaimed by the highest court in the reigning sole superpower, but which is of course also always true in practice (with or without declaration) for every king in every kingdom, they each understand that no one can even plausibly hang them for their measure of participating in propaganda and war crimes by echoing the Big Lie alongside the emperor. They know that today, there is no power greater than the emperor’s to pursue them even in some wishful victor’s justice. Secure in that knowledge, it is safe to be a propagandist of any flavor on any side of the coin – take whichever position you like based on your psychological disposition, natural talent, skill, and egotistical gratification.

See this open letter to their most prominent and respected leader – Goebbells’ direct counterpart Machiavellianly manipulating the dissenting minority of hoi polloi by echoing the Big Lie underneath all the protestations of the already visible barbarianism of hegemony:

http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2014/04/open-letter-noam-chomsky-by-zahirebrahim.html”

Credit to Inquisition-art.

Peter Kerstein defends academic free inquiry from intellectual auto-da-fe:

“Nation-states denying entry to controversial, independent-thinking scholars is increasingly common. The United States has fallen prey to such retrogressive actions as the revocation of a visa for the renowned University of Notre Dame visiting Islamic scholar, Tariq Ramadan. The politics of historical revisionism in the case of David Irving has similar baleful consequences for the unrestricted dissemination of nonconformist ideas. Mr. Irving is banned from Germany, Australia, Canada, Italy and New Zealand due to criticism of his scholarship and public utterances concerning World War II. The New Zealand decision, while literally applying its immigration law barring the entry of persons previously deported from third countries, has generated a nationwide debate whether Mr. Irving should be prohibited from lecturing on the historiography of World War II before the National Press Club. David Zwartz, president of the New Zealand Jewish Council and honorary Israeli consul in New Zealand, has led the campaign for exclusion. He described Mr. Irving as an “organism—even a two-legged one—that attacks our people.” (New Zealand Herald, July 26, 2004) Mr. Zwartz also claimed that denying entry to Mr. Irving had nothing to do “with suppressing his ideas” because his oeuvre is “available to anyone who wishes to access them.” (e-mail to author, August 3, 2004) The New Zealand Herald courageously demurred and editorialized in favor of freedom for historians. ( July 22, 2004)

Mr. Irving’s lot is that of all historians—to constantly re-appraise the events of the past. No event should be out of bounds. If, as in this case, the conclusions are palpably wrong, that is no reason for preventing their presentation—and their challenging by more profound scholarship. The only counter to flawed views is informed debate. Opinions that during this process are shown to be devoid of worth, wisdom or accuracy will quickly be discarded.

If one becomes a public figure due to widespread opposition to one’s speech—whether written or verbal—there are two choices: Fight or flight. If one determines upon reflection to maintain one’s commitment to principled beliefs, then one must avoid flight. Indeed if faced with an ideologically inspired auto-da-fé that threatens one’s occupation and livelihood, bending to the forces of conformity with their armamentarium of suspensions, reprimands, press releases, censorship and aroused public indignation, merely encourages additional coercion. One of the ironies in confronting the consensus orthodoxy of the Vital Center is when the offending rhetoric transmogrifies into protective armor and bestows a fierce commitment to stay the course and resist the firestorm. There emerges a heightened sense of self-worth and renewed dedication to one’s basic values. Recantation is not an option. Surrendering one’s ethics and core beliefs is not an option. Evolving and articulating different viewpoints are possible, and perhaps laudable, but not while under assault by Inquisitions in modern dress that substitute the Internet or economic intimidation for stake burnings.

Father Arthur Terminiello had a reputation for racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Communist epithets. The Birmingham, Alabama priest, who ministered to tenant farmers in Alabama and Florida, was known as the Father Coughlin of the South. Father Terminiello was arrested in Chicago in 1946 for haranguing against a threatening and disorderly mob that sought to disrupt his speech before Gerald L. K. Smith’s Christian Veterans of America. His detention granted his protagonists a Heckler’s veto, whereby a speaker is silenced merely due to protest against the event. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed an Illinois judge’s jury instructions that Chicago’s breach of the peace ordinance proscribed any utterance that “stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance. ” Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the majority in Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), affirmed free speech is essential for a free people:

Free speech…may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger…That is why freedom of speech though not absolute…is nevertheless protected against censorship and punishment…For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas by…dominant political or community groups. [Emphasis added.]

Hopefully Justice Douglas’s stirring reaffirmation of the importance of free speech for a democratic society will dissuade those who wish to abridge it and embolden those who wish to exercise it.“

Steve Sailer writes a brave analysis (like me, he realizes that deconstructing the gay lobby is rather important to deflecting war with Russia and other countries);

“Today, under the pro-Semitic Putin, Jews make up what’s approaching a fifth of Russia’s billionaires, but that’s less than in the 1990s, so it seems to the American media as if the Cossacks must be riding in like at the end of the first act of Fiddler on the Roof.

In America, where Jews make up one-third of the billionaires, it’s hard to argue that anti-Semitism is much of a problem anymore. Hence, one outlet for anti-anti-Semitic energies has been the gay movement.

Richard Grenier, the longtime movie reviewer for Commentary, was one of the first to call attention to this connection. After going to see Tony Kushner’s Angels in America and other AIDS plays in 1993, Grenier wrote:

… in a recent week of diligent theatergoing in New York, at the more commercially successful homosexual works, I got the impression that the audiences were something like 10 per cent homosexuals and 90 per cent heterosexual Jews—to all appearances well-to-do, liberal, husband-and-wife couples. We had some heterosexual Gentiles in the audiences, no doubt, but they appeared to be a distinct minority. During a preview of Angels in America, when one of the characters uttered an expletive in Yiddish, the house positively roared with laughter …

Grenier noted:

Many liberal Jews… have fully accepted the parallel between discrimination based on race or religion and discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” This parallel is reflected in the AIDS plays—indeed, it is more than reflected. To put it plainly, these plays are about Jews and Jewishness almost as much as they are about homosexuality.… The characters talk endlessly about Jews and homosexuality, homosexuality and Jews. The playwrights themselves find a correlation.

Am I not to notice this?

Not noticing is usually the most prudent policy in modern America. Then again, is it worth heedlessly bear-baiting our way into a war with Russia because we’re not supposed to notice?

Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki’s Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don’t get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/but_is_it_good_for_the_gays_steve_sailer/print#ixzz2yPvlE4wE

Christopher Cantwell, being brutalist:

“At the end of this discussion, it really doesn’t matter who’s right or who’s wrong, the person with the superior numbers is going to force their bad ideas on everybody else at gun point. Just imagine doing this in reverse, where you start with a threat instead of ending with it. Nobody would try to be polite about their disagreement under those circumstances.

Since we know we have inferior numbers, and the minority always gets screwed and threatened by democracy, this is exactly what this discussion looks like to us. It begins and ends with the threat of violence, so the fact that we don’t shoot you in the face really speaks volumes to our civility.”

Comment:

Cantwell, a righteous atheist, is pretty good on his ten reasons why libertarians don’t need to be nice.

Note: I don’t consider myself a libertarian of the anarcho-capitalist variety.

I’m a classical liberal.

I come down on the same side as LRC on a lot – if not a majority – of issues for practical reasons.  At some point, I will have the time to stop following the news and read more theory and then I will resolve the theoretical arguments for myself.

Jerusalem Post:

Russian lawmakers approved a bill that would make Holocaust denial illegal.

The lower house of the Russian Parliament, or Duma, passed the measure Friday on its first reading, the Voice of Russia reported Monday, making it illegal to deny the verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal and punishing the “rehabilitation of Nazism.”

Those found guilty of the crime could be fined up to $8,300 or imprisoned up to three years. Public officials or media personalities would be fined nearly double or face up to five years in prison.

The bill also needs the approval of the Federation Council, or upper house. It was authored five years ago and resubmitted in February.”

Holocaust denial is illegal in only 17 countries, most of which are in Europe, where the majority of  crimes against Jews, as a people/religion, have been committed.

However, there is a substantial body of research and evidence that argues that those crimes were reactions to previous offenses or provocations.

Here is where the problem lies.

In order to credibly make their case, the revisionists have to enter fields of inquiry that on their face appear anti-Semitic.  But since the future of Europe is very much a captive of how her history is written,  the research becomes politically vital.

So, although the actual number of countries that have criminalized revisionist history isn’t overwhelming by any means, the importance of the outlawing is. Because of it, history is still held hostage to power.

This long and important piece by Glenn Greenwald describes a variety of tactics used by government operatives to infiltrate, trick, and generally game internet discourse. I’ve mentioned many of the tactics I’ve spotted on the net, but there’s nothing like seeing the actual operational plan. The only problem with the piece is that Greenwald himself is likely a limited hang-out/damage-control guy. Others have said as much about the way he’s been dribbling out the Snowden material.

Also, in this piece he references Anonymous.

Well, a lot of people think Anonymous itself is an operation run by some spy agency. So, while Greenwald’s information is good, I’m sure what he reveals is only a portion of what’s going on. The real action is probably several steps ahead of us.