Allen Dulles and the American 4th Reich

by William Skink

I haven’t written anything this past week because I’ve been too engrossed in David Talbot’s new book The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA and the Rise of America’s Secret Government. It’s enlightening, to say the least.

I haven’t gotten to the juicy parts about the Kennedy assassination yet, but Talbot does an exhaustive job showing how the Dulles Brothers established a Nazi-friendly, communist-obsessed post-WWII environment in America where foreign leaders were deposed to benefit corporate interests under a rigid, paranoid ideological umbrella singularly focused on countering Soviet communism across the globe.

Reading about this critical time period puts everything that comes after in disturbing context. The opportunity to move past Cold War paranoia died with Kennedy, perpetuating the consequences (and, for the Military/Industrial complext, benefits) into a 21st century that America is still trying desperately to dominate.

Reading reactions to the armed standoff in Oregon, one of the valid criticisms is that the Bundy clan was emboldened after the Feds failed to deal with their lawlessness in Nevada.

I apply that same criticism to the seditious actions of operators like Allen Dulles. This country failed to hold those within America’s government accountable for enacting a coup on American soil, and that failure has continued to metastasize.

Politics in America is now totally captured by the plutocrats, which is one reason why party identification is near historic lows:

In 2015, for the fifth consecutive year, at least four in 10 U.S. adults identified as political independents. The 42% identifying as independents in 2015 was down slightly from the record 43% in 2014. This elevated percentage of political independents leaves Democratic (29%) and Republican (26%) identification at or near recent low points, with the modest Democratic advantage roughly where it has been over the past five years.

Those who continue to labor under the illusion that America is a democracy need to wake the fuck up.

Advertisements

About William Skink

I'm a poet and political cynic living and writing in Montana. You can contact me here: willskink at yahoo dot com
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Allen Dulles and the American 4th Reich

  1. Hmmm … 29% Democrat, 26% Republican, 55% total. The median IQ in the US is 100, meaning that half the population has a two-digit IQ.

    Coincidence?

    Like

    • Big Swede says:

      “And those who were dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.”-Nietzsche.

      Like

      • No doubt Nietzsche (whom I’ve never read either) was talking about American party politics.

        Like

        • Big Swede says:

          You should give him a look Mark. Thought of you with this quote.

          “There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness.”-Nietzsche.

          Like

        • I’ve been exposed to his writings in my lifetime – remember a Time Magazine cover back in the sixties that asked “Is God Dead?” and Dr. Stuart McBirney on the radio mispronouncing his name and blaming him for the world wide communist conspiracy. And I know about the Ubermensch … just form dabbling.

          But two things I cannot fathom, for the life of me – philosophy and poetry. I can understand them when others explain them to me, but when I read them myself I come up dry.

          Like

  2. Big Swede says:

    You’re closing in on the truth Liz.

    Like

  3. Eric says:

    “Those who continue to labor under the illusion that America is a democracy need to wake the fuck up.”

    A lot of people don’t realize that America is not a Democracy, and never has been. In a true Democracy, you have mob rule – 50% of the voters, plus one vote can trample everybody’s rights.
    That’s why our founding fathers chose us to be a Constitutional Republic.

    4th Reich? I don’t think so – the Obama Regime doesn’t have the spine for it.

    Like

    • The Republic, if we even had one then, died in 1947.

      Like

    • JC says:

      We do have Mob rule… by the 1%.

      Like

    • steve kelly says:

      No doubt preferable to organized criminal gangs — business, government, NGO, industry, labor, you name it — being in charge.

      “The outcomes were determined by concentrated private power.

      There’s a long record of that going way back. Thomas Ferguson, a political scientist near here, has shown very convincingly that something as simple as campaign spending is a very good predictor of policy. That goes back into the late 19th century, right through the New Deal, you know, right up till the present. And that’s only one element of it. And you take a look at the literature, about 70 percent of the population, what they believe has no effect on policy at all. You get a little more influence as you go up. When you get to the top, which is probably, like, a tenth of one percent, they basically write the legislation. The outcomes were determined by concentrated private power.”

      http://www.alternet.org/media/noam-chomsky-tells-chris-hedges-how-our-ruling-elite-leading-america-catastrophe

      Like

  4. Ken Nari says:

    I’m also reading Devil’s Chessboard. How little we knew. How slow it’s been to come out. (Stephan Kinzer’s “The Brothers”, 2014, also is good on the Dulles brothers. As one reviewer on Amazon said: “Just when you thought you knew just how bad the United States has been in the world, you come across a history like this.”

    Only a third of the way through Devil’s Chessboard and already:

    Dulles has committed treason by secretly helping many of the worst Nazis escape (people who had tortured and killed his own agents in Italy) in order to get Nazi gold for himself and his banker cronies — and then used some of that gold to launch the career of Richard Nixon, who had discovered what was going on and had to be bought off.

    He has taken a girlfriend for a night out, a woman suspected of being a spy, and after dinner, as they walk home, he turns her over to two British agents and she’s never heard from again.

    He has goaded Stalin into arresting hundreds of thousands on innocent people in Eastern Europe (170,000 in Czechoslovakia alone) who were then routinely imprisoned, tortured and often killed.

    Really a case study of what can happen when, in order to gain power, a psychopath callously uses everyone who crosses his path. He ruins lives without a thought and brags about how many trusting people he’s set up to be killed…

    After getting this far I went out to see what Wikipedia had to say about Dulles. Not a hint he was anything but a selfless, true American hero. I hit the edit tab to see if anyone had tried to update the entry with any of Kinzer’s or Talbot’s information. Nope, not a word. Dulles would be pleased how information continues to be managed nearly 50 years after his death.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Wikipedia is just another CIA front,a s far as I can see, as is AL Jazeera, Snopes.com, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, “911 Truth”, ad nauseum. Some of the best work done on 911 was by Dr Judy Wood – she is not allowed to even have a Wiki page, which to me means she got too close to the truth.

      Like

      • JC says:

        “Wikipedia is just another CIA front”

        Maybe that is why Mathis relies on it so heavily…

        Like

      • It has been thoroughly scrubbed of anything important. If you want trivia, it will fill the bill. Sometime go read the official story of 911 on Wikipedia – it aligns with official truth in every detail down the the impossible speeds at which alleged planes were flying on impact.

        If you read Mathis, he explains why he uses Wikipedia along with a host of other sources. But you pooh-poohed him after brief exposure.

        Like

        • JC says:

          No, I dismissed much of his opinions when I found many of his details — including many references to Wikipedia (without the disclaimer you mentioned) — unsourced and inaccurate. And, I wouldn’t call reading 10 of his articles “brief exposure” as his writings are long and rambling.

          Like

        • You didn’t read the one on Wikipedia, and why he uses it.

          Curious, which ten articles?

          Like

        • PS – I love his writing style, free and fluid. He thinks with his fingers, as I do, has a sharp mind and wit, and is not bound by conventional wisdom, which leads him to places few go. He’s actually interesting to read, rare, even if you choose to hold back on being convinced. His paper on Camelot (80+ pages) and Manson (100+) wee riveting, to me, though they are back-burnered in my mind until corroborating information comes aboard. (It is indeed odd that Charles Manson ports a beard when bears are not allowed in the California prions system.) So far, only one item has, some weird behavior by a young Harvey Oswald in North Dakota in the mid-1950’s that I read about in John Armstrong’s book Harvey and Lee, which tends to support the hypothesis that the Kennedy assassination was a ritual planned years in advance. One item only though.

          And as I said, Lennon, Jackson, are supported by enough evidence to conclude his case in convincing. Jackson is a no-brainer. They are but pop icons. Hawking being dead too is a no-brainer, and raises serious questions about the state of science. These are matters where the evidence convinced me, not Mathis. But I see a sharp mind there and an iconoclastic nature. I like him.

          Like

        • Should read “It is indeed odd that Charles Manson sports a beard when beards are not allowed in the California prions system.”

          Like

        • JC says:

          I just read Mathis’ paper on Wiki (make that 11 total), and not one word on “why he uses it”. Just a bunch of wiki-bashing, of which there is nothing new in what he says. Having spent much time editing wiki articles myself, most of what he says is self-apparent to those who have spent any time in a good-faith effort to add content to Wiki.

          Like

        • No word on the other ten? I’d be curious which ones you read.

          Honestly JC, I am just trying to flesh you out here, get to the nut of the matter. Though I can be fooled, I can take a guy like Mathis (or Chomsky or Potash or Skink or Pogie or Kailey) and develop a feel and from that ascertain his essential honesty or dishonesty. My take on Mathis is that he is essentially real and honest. It comes through between the lines as he debates with himself while his fingers work. Notice I don’t say “right” and that I only say “evidence” and never “proof.” It’s a murky world we inhabit. There is so much more to learn about everything he writes about. That’s another topic.

          But you took a dislike from the outset, and right away went searching for one or two things to use as linchpins for a full frontal attack, saying that he’s not only wrong, but dishonest. (Your evidence has not been convincing.) At first I thought it had to do with Earth First!, and still think it might, that I long ago saw it as a provocateur tool and that Mathis dismissed it too, while you are invested in it. That’s all I got, still.

          Wikipedia? It is not a trustworthy source, but that does not mean that it cannot be used as a source. I am not Pete Talbot, I am not looking for the Holy Written Truth. I expect to have to use my brain. I know Wiki is run through and through with spooks, but that spooks don’t control the whole operation. So often enough it is dependable, but you always have to keep an eye out. Mathis reads it with an understanding that it’s been worked over by spooks, and is looking for clues and leads and evidence. When he sees a person’s background or ancestry scrubbed, he looks to other sources to find out what was excised, often having success. That is how he uses Wiki, and I find that method credible.

          It’s always a matter of using our brains first, and last.

          Like

        • JC says:

          Mark, as I said before, and has Steve Kelly, read Mathis for all the entertainment value that you want. I read plenty of fiction, historical fiction, and fantasy too. But I don’t confuse it with science or nonfiction. Again, don’t pin your reputation on Mathis’ work.

          I don’t know why I even need to justify your question into what Mathis work I have read, as we’ve already talked about a half dozen. Add to that several physics pieces (where Mathis is totally whack like pi=4), some philosophy (dissing both Buddhists and atheists), and the Unabomber and Hippies.

          And I’ll reiterate, go measure pi yourself (circumference of a circle divided by the diameter) and if you ever get close to 4, I’ll debate any Mathis article of your choice, point for point. It’s not even low math. Take a string, wrap it around a can, and measure the length with a ruler. Then take the string, lay it across the can, and measure it with a ruler. Then divide the circumference by the diameter (I know you are a CPA and capable of basic math). Simple, and the answer is 3.14… (always).

          But Mathis will spend 3,000+ words of sleight of hand to convince the unsuspecting reader that pi=4. If he can convince you or any other reader of that, he can convince you of anything. So, convince me that I am wrong, and Mathis is right about pi, and we can continue to talk about him as if he had much worthwhile to say, instead of just being an entertainer. As you said, “Use your brain.”

          Like

        • ok! I will grapple with your challenge.

          As I have explained ad nauseum, I DO NOT HAVE THE BACKGROUND to discuss math and physics. That does not mean I cannot understand it, only that, as with any field, the intricacies will confound the amateur. So while your basic 3.14159 is a no brainer, as I read his paper I lost sight of that and had to set it aside. He was dabbling further afield, and I was not qualified to make a judgment even as, like you, I can tie a string around a can. You say it is sleight of hand. I don’t know, worse yet, don’t care. You’re a little annoying here, as I have repeatedly said I don’t care and yet you want to whip me with that wet noodle. Yes, I an tie a string around a can.

          Let’s take the Manson paper. Let’s grapple with it. You up to it? I do not know what to make of it. But I have an extensive background in spooks. PSYOPS. Like any damned fool, I can see that the Battleship Maine was false flag, so I know it is not new. I also know that CIA was pushing psychadelic drugs and sponsoring musicians at that time. (McGowan.) I know that our current mass shootings are usually faked, so would not be surprised if in the past serial killers served the same end. So Mathis looks at photographic and other evidence, and concludes that Manson is not in prison, no one died, and the whole event, including the trial, was a PSYOP. I have learned since the trial the Bugliosi is a complete fraud, so there is that.

          All that in mind, you wanna do this? Let’s do it. My place or yours? It is a 100 page paper. Have fun.

          Like

        • JC says:

          Mark, I said prove me wrong about Mathis. You didn’t do that. I, and every other physicist in the world agrees that Mathis is a loon on his pi=4 paper. I don’t really have time in the immediate future (way too much work on my plate right now) to digest 100 more pages of Mathis, so I’ll pass on Manson..

          Like

        • There’s that word, “prove” again, coupled with another appeal to authority, and all about a matter I’ve made clear I have no interest or background in. Also, I knew in choosing a 100-page paper, we could put this matter to rest. I was doing a PSYOP.

          Like

        • JC says:

          Mark, math and physics is all about the “proof.” That is part of the scientific method. It is how a scientist debunks pseudo-science as perpetrated by Mathis. You can be as much anti-science as you want, but that doesn’t make you right. You say you have no interest in science — got that. I do. When I see someone purport to be more brilliant than the sum of human knowledge in math and physics — when he obviously is wrong — I tend to view all of his other opinions in other areas with great skepticism. Mathis’ Galileo complex really is a classic study in megalomania.

          Like

        • I am moved only by evidence, and not faith. Therefore, again, I have decided that three things he has exposed have merit, Lennon, Jackson, and Hawking. What any of that has to do with math and physics is beyond me. The manner in which you use his attitudes on physics to discredit is work in the areas I brought to your attention is alchemy. Very interesting however. I see many darts and dodges when people are confronted with ideas that challenge their assumptions. Yours is unique. Mathis’ ideas on the ammeters I raise are bumpkins because he wrote a paper on pi you don’t like.

          Hawking is dead, has been for thirty years. They are keeping him alive for some reason, as his pronouncements on matters like alien civilizations and the Higgs boson have gravitas. This is very curious behavior, and an invitation to study it more. They are hiding his death for a reason. Why?

          Regarding math and science and “proof”, I have seen mathematical proofs. But in climate science, physics, and astrophysics, I’ve seen fraud galore, from hacked emails where they admit lying to fake moon landings to an admission that they do not know the makeup of most of our universe – so-called “dark matter” which could by anything from fraud to ignorance to a message form the universe to start over again. So don’t “proof” me in those fields. If everything else in our country is corrupt, why not science?

          I admit my lack of background, but that does not mean I have zero understanding of the current state of affairs.

          Like

        • JC says:

          “I am moved only by evidence”

          Mark, I have showed you several pieces of “evidence” with both the Hawking and the Lennon piece that are phony. Yet you proceed to believe them. Mathis is showing photos that do not support his thesis. You say you are moved only by evidence, but some of his evidence is false, or manufactured. Just like with pi=4, the evidence (a simple set of measurements and a single math division) often does not support his assertions, or his thesis.

          I looked at a few sets of photos in the Manson piece, and the same charlatanry is apparent there. What he claims as evidence, you accept without challenge. When shown how Mathis is wrong, you ignore what you are shown (the peace symbol fingers, and the guitar technique of Lennon and Staycer or the doctored photo of fillings in Hawking’s teeth). When shown inconsistencies in Mathis’ personal claims (having worked for EF!), you think I have a vendetta, or you just disclaim the whole movement. After having been pointed to the false claims about the Unabomber (his relationship to Missoula enviros for instance, or his presence in Lincoln) you ignore it. I’ve got a bunch more of this sort of stuff about Mathis I haven’t shared with you. The Unabomber and Hippy articles are rife with garbage. Every article I look at has a problem. The 911 video Mathis misinterpreted. He’s sloppy. On and on.

          So yeah, if it’s entertaining, read it. He may have a unique way at looking at some things that are pretty well spelled out by others (the CIA hit on Nixon), but is dishonest in saying that his work is original or unique. He borrows on the work of others without attribution. He’s a plagiarist. Or maybe even just a crafty satirist. But that doesn’t make him right, even most of the time. It makes him suspect.

          Like

        • You haven’t “shared” anything with me except the peace sign photo, and I commented at the time that the position of the hands were not identical, so that it was not convincing. However, that one unconvincing piece of evidence became your linchpin to undo the entire piece. Later you came back and said, due to your own specialized knowledge of guitar methods (an appeal to authority), that Lennon and Staycer were two different people. Again, not convincing.

          I, on tech other hand, read the paper twice, examined all the photos, went further and examined all of the photos available of Chapman (different people are used), and then bought the movie and watched it three times. As a Lennon fan, I recognized about the character in the movie mannerisms and modes of speech that sealed it for me. I am convinced, not beyond all doubt, but convinced that it is (or was) John Lennon.

          Add to that my background in propaganda and manipulation of images to control public opinion, and I can grasp that Lennon may have been fake killed, and for any number of reasons. The TV screen is but a window to a fake world, but is reality for most people.

          I got a little more going for me than you do in that matter.

          You, on the other hand, having read very little of him and doing so with more than a little confirmation bias, merely make vague references to items of deceit, without specifics, and tell me that by that I should be convinced that he is fake. Drag your evidence out, put it in front of me. The two times you have done that have not moved me.

          Like

        • JC says:

          Go back and read our conversations in the comments here and at your place. Everything I referred to above we have chatted about. C’est la vie. But whatever you do, quit getting personal about it and asserting any kind of moral or intellectual or investigative superiority over me. Your attempts to place Mathis on a pedestal and not consider any of the downsides — you haven’t acknowledged one of my criticisms, except briefly the 911 video and a dismissal of wanting to pursue pi=4 by acknowledging pi probably is equal to 3.1.4… — lead me to believe that their is no debating Mathis with you. You defer to him on almost all counts.

          Here’s my initial critique of the beginning of the Manson piece, paragraph 2:

          “I will also prepare your mind and eyes”

          Mathis basically is acknowledging he’s engaging in his own psyop on the unsuspecting reader. He’s brainwashing you. Paragraph 3:

          “you have been getting disinformation from all sides”

          Here Mathis again is hiding in plain sight, as his side is full of disinformation, too. Or maybe, just maybe if we have enough faith and actually “believe” in the guy — that he is smarter than anybody else on the planet, ’cause he’s the only one to put this story together — we can put aside any criticism of his “evidence”, and get prepared (brainwashed) enough to suspend all disbelief.

          Now give me a reason why I should read any further.

          Like

        • I have not said or written anything about the Manson piece. I used it here because it was 100 pages and I thought it would scare you away. I have not gotten personal with you. I am merely unable to back down in an argument, and am always looking for openings, which you provide with vague assertions without specific citation, appeals to your own expertise (which walls you off, creates an impenetrable barrier, since to suggest you don’t have the expertise you suggest is “getting personal” (nasty tactic, by the way)), and two bare-boned examples you used against scores of other evidence provided my Mathis in the Lennon paper which you say upends all other evidence. Not so.

          I don’t care about the words he uses to describe his own efforts. I am moved by evidence. I stated at the outset when I first wrote about him months ago that he has a monumental ego. I work around it, concentrate on his evidence, enjoy his fluid writing style, and have set everything aside for further evidence, letting it all percolate, except Lennon, Jackson, and Hawking. Have I mentioned that before?

          You, on the other hand, have wanted to drown him in the bathtub from the beginning, thereby not exposing yourself to the evidence, which speaks for itself, either creating a case or failing in its own. I have noticed this phenomenon before – people avoid looking at evidence that might challenge cherished assumptions.

          I read the pi=4 piece fully understanding how a string around a beer can would measure 3.14 X circumference. I am pretty sure Mathis knows this too. He is making a more complex assertion that I could not grasp. I don’t give two shits if the entire scientific community, including those who fake Hawking’s continuing presence, ridicule the man. That sort of thing does not move me, as I endure a lot of ridicule on my own and know to move forward in spite of it. I simply do not understand the paper. I don’t think you do either, as you continually revert back to the piece of string.

          I like Mathis for his writing style, and the fact that so much of what he writes harmonizes and expands on things I already knew or suspected. The vast majority of it sits on my shelf, percolating, waiting for independent corroboration from other sources. I have only settled on Lennon, Jackson and Hawking as being backed by enough evidence to go public with. Have I mentioned that?

          You have two choices – read him, or ignore him. Reading him, even if you dispute his integrity and all of his evidence, will not harm you. That’s a Talbot-like approach in my book, having to trust that you’re going to agree with something before reading it. The purpose of schooling, prior to the 20th century, was to teach people how to think rather than what to think, so they could navigate life with independent minds and judge for themselves the merit of information and ideas on their own. This idea, which I see constantly, that we should not read this or that, not expose ourself to ideas and people we find foreign (or go scurrying off to a debunking site), speaks of inability to navigate. You read him, don’t like him, so what? As SK said, if nothing else, he is interesting. Not too much going on in the way of interesting writing, in my view, so I eat it up.

          I am kind of spent here.

          Like

        • JC says:

          “evidence that might challenge cherished assumptions”

          Mark, I have no assumptions about Manson, cherished or otherwise. And it seems that I have read more of that article than you. But unlike you, words do matter to me. But what you call “evidence” as presented by Mathis more likely than not is concocted or faked. Mostly it is unsourced, so therefor unverifiable. Like the photos he uses to make a stupid point about ear-pinning not allowed in prison — the photos were all just taken off of google images. Any amateur could have placed bad photos there. Using google images as a source isn’t much different than building a case built on bad Wikipedia information — which by the way you never responded to my point about Mathis just bashing Wiki,and not giving any reason for using it (while you asserted he did).

          I believe in the concept of garbage in, garbage out. It’s my guiding light when dealing with Mathis. And when his words indicate that a piece is nothing more than a guided fantasy (“I will also prepare your mind and eyes”), I take those words to heart. And I turn my own brain on and look critically.

          You say I have two choices: “Read him or ignore him”. No Mark, I have a whole lot of other choices — it is not for you to lay out the choices before me. I can read other things, which I do voluminously. Time spent reading Mathis (or arguing with you about it) is time I’m not spending reading other things. I can read Mathis or I can read McGowan and Wood, or I can read Mate and Hart, Talbot and Jensen, or read some literature or play some guitar, or visit with my family.

          Mathis is a grand deflection in the world of CT. Read him at your own peril.

          Like

        • Read him at my peril? What peril? There’s no peril in reading anyone! I have a mind, my own, and can read anything and even though I can be fooled, undermined, lied to, misled, none of that matters because the search for truth is a process of percolation more than discovery. I once bought in to Thom Hartmann and LaMar Waldron’s assertion that the mob killed JFK. They were doing a professional misdirect, and it fooled me. So what? I got better.

          I did explain the Wiki matter, and will do so again: He is fully aware that Wikipedia is overrun by spooks and heavily censored. But it is also full of clues. He doesn’t rely on Wikipedia as a source of truth, but a place where anyone with a brain can find clues that lead to truth. He regards it as spooks writing for spooks. Example: You are researching the background of say, Joan Baez. (I am making this up, as I don’t care about her). You find that her parents are mentioned, but not their careers. You find that odd, and leaving Wiki, go to other sources to learn that her Dad was in military intelligence.

          That’s how to use Wikipedia.

          But what you call “evidence” as presented by Mathis more likely than not is concocted or faked. Mostly it is unsourced, so therefor unverifiable.

          I’ve read hundreds and hundreds of pages. That is just not true. Not true. He will source things for interest, but usually in Sherlockian style connects dots, a lost art. You are looking to rely on his brain rather than your own … we are never spared the duty of thinking for ourselves.

          His honing in on the purpose of showing Senators heart-attack guns in the Church hearings was brilliant, in my mind. On the other hand, he goes overboard – his paper on Ted Bundy was utterly unconvincing, as was the one on chemtrails. I suspect that Marilyn Monroe’s was really murdered. He stated that The Matrix was likely written by CIA, but we have no way of knocking that. (ARGO for sure was, but he’s not broached that one.) I have not been harmed in any way by these matters and others.

          I don’t care what you read. I have not found your assertions regarding Mathis to be credible, and so have engaged you to flesh out your attitudes and opinions. That’s all. I also find the idea of avoiding reading someone until you are absolutely convinced you can trust him to be repugnant. That’s why we have brains.

          Like

        • JC says:

          Mark, I’ll say it one last time, reading and obsessing over Mathis takes time away from life’s other pursuits. If you enjoy reading Mathis, then by all means do. But don’t throw temper tantrums when other people don’t agree with either your or his “opinions.” I gave him a fair shake, and may read some more if I want (his recent takedown of Steve Jobs is a prime opportunity to see how bad he really is). I find his style obnoxious. He is a bad writer, in my estimation. He is just like Ricardo Montalban’s Roarke: “Welcome to Fantasy Island,” building a fantasy that he hopes will ensnare readers.

          And you asserted that Mathis explained why he used Wiki. But he does no such thing — you do. You won’t accept any criticism of Mathis from anybody. Like when I say that his analysis of the Fairbanks was totally flawed, you just poo-poo’d it and said move on. What you would believe is evidence from Mathis, when that “evidence” is shown to be false, you just look the other way. You say you’re toying with me, but every time I put something that doesn’t jibe with your belief in Mathis, you just move on to something else.

          Oh, and just one more thing about pi=4. Mathis is not making “a more complex assertion.” Pi by definition is simply the circumference of a circle divided by the diameter. Nothing more complex than that, but he has you believing there is. In that, he has achieved his purpose. And you wonder why I say to read him at your own peril? It’s not because you may enjoy it, or learn something, it’s because you are willing to believe in him, when much of his evidence proves to be tainted, fabricated, or falsely interpreted.

          Like

        • I have not “obsessed,” thrown “temper tantrums.” My style of writing is blunt and forthright, and argumentation requires that I attack your weak points, appeals to authority (your own and others’) your primary tool.

          The two (2) disputations of real evidence you did I found unconvincing.

          I did not understand the pi=4 paper, but do not think a matter so simple as a string around a beer can gets to the jist of it. That is something we all know. It’s a little more esoteric and beyond my grasp, and that is something I truly have no interest in. You keep throwing it at me as if he cannot measure a piece of string. Perhaps you are missing something?

          He refers to Wiki a lot, and always points out where Wiki omissions lead to other avenues, it’s true usefulness. (Do you really think in a land where everything is censored, Wikipedia up gets a free run?)

          If your attacks on him had been substantive and convincing, I would say as much. But you started out by bringing in one photo of JL with some green lines on his fingers (you never said where you got that by the way, speaking of sources) and said there, that’s nails it, he’s wrong, without having even read the paper! I find that off-putting, and you’ve not done much since to settle matters.

          That he is often apparently wrong? So what? So am I. So are you. Even Kailey gets his football calls wrong. Life is a murky mess at best, the search for truth unending. But we need to be unrelenting. I read him, many many others, and also walk and chew gum.

          Ay what point have we stated and restated everything?,

          Like

        • JC says:

          2 points: 1) was or was not Mathis wrong about the Fairbanks video?; and 2) I thought you read the Lennon piece, the two photos I placed up were the two photos from Mathis’ Lennon paper in which he uses the photos to determine that the hands were the same, and I showed proof that they were not. So take your pick on the photos, is Mathis right, or am I? It is my opinion that I am. If you side with Mathis, I think that you are wrong. The Fairbanks video is completely misinterpreted by Mathis. This shows he has a complete lack of observational skills, which isn’t what you would expect from anyone with even rudimentary skills in physics. Again, is Mathis wrong about the Fairbanks video, or am I? If you think I am, then there really is no reason debating any of this with you as you have a closed mind about Mathis and are unable to admit he may be wrong on his assertions and opinions, and someone else might be right.

          I just read the Steve Jobs piece, and it was really horrible. First off, antisemitism is never proof that anyone is right about anything. Mathis heavily relies on his antisemitism to make most of his points early on. Mathis has shown his ignorance about Jobs’ and Apple’s history, his understanding of the market value of Apple (currently and in recent history), the place Apple’s various products relate competing against others’ (like the iPhone), on and on. The more I read him, the more whack I find him to be.

          Like

        • Ah, the Fairbanks video. Here I do have some personal creds. You say that Mathis made a mistake, since there was a car windshield and not a building there. Apparently he did. So what? A mistake. He makes them, like we all do. From that you extrapolate that he has no observational skills. That’s confirmation bias, wanting to draw a huge conclusion from a minor matter. The Fairbanks video is your deal, not mine, and I’ve long trancended that sort of stuff. It is all put out there to keep us off the track. I’ll explain.

          You state below to Bob that 911 Truth has done important work in disproving the original story. That is also the path Mathis was on when he was a “Truther,” and perhaps when he wrote about Fairbanks. He is withdrawing now, but is yet to understand, as are you, what “911 Truth” is about. It is an Intelligence operation created to protect secret technology. Because you are smart enough to see the original fable is false, they are giving you other false leads, and arguing the details of things like the Fairbanks video is part of that rabbit hole.

          Dr. Wood is ignored by the “Truth” movement for a reason. She discovered what happened that day. Since you haven’t read her book, a daunting challenge, you’re still out in the cold, and will be until you do. I await that day. I have asked Mathis to look into her work, and he has not, which is not a good sign as to his creds. I’ve told you this before, but I don’t sense that you read comments. Anyway, moving on …

          He does look to Jewish roots, and explains why in various places, as Jewish roots seem to go hand-in-hand with intelligence operations. I don’t know why. Since you’ve not read enough if him to understand this, sneering “anti-semistism” at him is lowbrow and lefty, and costs you several points in the creds department, in my view. I do tire of lefty autocorrect reactions.

          I knew you’d be looking at the Jobs piece, so I read it again today and it blew right by you in many aspects. I’ve been expecting you to have at me via that source. One, it shows you why he uses Wikipedia – the whole of the Jobs biography is fiction, and laughable fiction at that, but he uses Wiki to demonstrate the fraud that is part of our fake reality. You did not do a detailed analysis of the piece, and only threw out some general nonspecific criticism, as I have come to expect. But he did a remarkable job if disrobing Jobs, the man, not Apple, the company. Jobs is an actor, had no special skills apparent, but carried forward the mythology of the individual genius advancing technology.

          And that was the point, that Apple technology, which has now p,laced tracking devices In Each of our pockets, was not Jobs, or Apple, but DARPA. That is the thrust. You missed it in total.

          I have No problem with any of this. I’ve come so far these past years of blogging, come to see so much more than I could even imagine seeable, what running into Mathis for me had been like running into me, only a much smarter me.

          Let’s quit now, JC. I’ve seen enough, not doubt you too. I’ve always liked you and this does not change that, so I am sorry if my methods of argumentation place you in an angry state of mind. Few people can deal with me. I cannot imagine why I am a happy man, but I am. People like Mathis light me up. They make life interesting.

          Like

        • JC says:

          Mark, I’m not angry. But you are arguing with a straw man here. Very little of what you just asserted has any bearing in reality. You said:

          “You state below to Bob that 911 Truth…”

          I said nothing about 911 Truth. Don’t even know where or why you pulled that gem out.

          And as I said, anti-semitism is not a reason to suspect someone. You can ignore that he is antisemitic, but that says more about you than about him or I, who am willing to call out antisemitism. You may say stupid things like calling out antisemitism “costs you several points in the creds department.” But that is bullshit. My wife grew up in Germany, and her father was a nazi soldier, who spent 5 years in a Soviet prison camp. So the topic of antisemitism is one we are well aware of, and well discussed. You’d do well to avoid knee-jerk antisemitism. There are plenty of reasons to criticize Israel and many Jewish people, but I don’t do well with outright bigotry, of which Mathis is a prime example, and you are treading on. And I don’t think that the more Mathis I read, the more I’ll accept antisemitism. That’s a crock.

          Mathis’ “take down” of Jobs and your defense of it is laughable. What do you really know of Jobs or Apple, or PARC, Xerox, DARPA or what was going on at Berkeley and Stanford in the 60s and 70s? Or the computer and software industry in general? Have you read Markoff? If Mathis had read Markoff, he’d realize what a stupid fool he made of himself. The whole infusion of defense and intelligence assets into the high-tech industry and research goes far beyond anything he even imagines.

          I’ve got much more on the Jobs hit. Just because I haven’t gone tit-for-tat with you on it doesn’t mean diddly. Jobs took a near bankrupt company to one worth $350 billion when he died, and he did it in 14 years. A few years after that it was the most valuable company in the world, if you look at market value. That just doesn’t happen without a guiding force. If it wasn’t Jobs, who was it? The CIA? The mythical “they” that Mathis uses as his omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being that controls the world?

          Like

        • I said, and I repeat, that there is a connection between Jews and Intelligence (Capital “I”) in history. That is objective reality. Smart people are not racially (or culturally) prejudiced. Mathis is not, I am not. That does not mean that we cannot comment on objective reality. It’s complex, to be sure, but Jews ended up as they are due to many factors. What you are doing here is beneath dignity, pulling out the Hitler card in essence. Shame on you.

          You said

          I think that most of the competing theories to the official story of 911 have much to contribute to convincing people that the official story is bunk.

          From that I said

          You state below to Bob that 911 Truth has done important work in disproving the original story.

          The “competing stories” are the “911 Truth” movement, all rabbit holes. There is objective reality. It ain’t there. “911 Truth” is but a second layer of cover-up. If you have other sources not part of 911 Truth who are disproving the original story, now is the time. Give it up.

          Like

    • JC says:

      There’s dozens of competing theories and ideas at Wiki. Whether or not you’d call them “911 Truth” or not, that’s not my problem:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

      Get to work, you and Mathis… Oh, and quit building that straw man.

      As to your and Mathis’ antisemitism, there’s been many a connection in history between catholics and “Intelligence” and muslims and intelligence, and orthodox christians and intelligence, atheists and intelligence. If you really want to generalize a whole cultural group as connected to “Intelligence” etc., then we’ve got bigger problems here than debating Mathis.

      Like

      • I do urge that you read Dr. Wood’s book, which you say is on your horizon. You’ll find that there are no “theories” in it. It is a textbook that lays out evidence of the events at WTC that day. It is tough reading. It is not a narrative. It is 500 pages of photos, graphs, math, some physics and particle analysis. Dr. Wood makes the point that speculating on who or how or why is pointless until we know “what” happened.

        “9/11 Truth” is an intelligence operation designed to protect the technologies that were used that day. They do so by creating “theories” unsupported by evidence that lead away from actual evidence (bombs, nukes, nanothermites) and creating dissension among various factions. So long as we are arguing about planted theories, the real events and technologies used that day are safely hidden. Hence, 9/11 Truth has driven Dr. Wood to the margins. She is too close to truth.

        And, she does not have a Wiki page. People have tried and been told to eff off. Of course Wiki will show the alternate “theories” about 9/11, as they are part of the cover-up.

        Your stuff on anti-semitism is misdirection, character assassination, and misses the point in total. All countries have Intel, but Jewish agents have been alive and deeply embedded in our culture since creation of the state of Israel. That is what needs some attention.

        Like

  5. Bob Williams says:

    Here’s two reasons to read further but elsehere.
    1. The question of what is it that instantly converted Tower concrete to powder drove me to get beyond the video of Dr. Judy Wood and read all of her book, two years ago. (the Tower columns were “cut through” by thermite, w nil slag, but explosives did not vaporize the concrete.) I’m 76, I need help understanding stuff. JC, I’m interested if you have a contribution to make regarding the evidence that Dr. Wood has detailed. If not, that’s fine.
    2. Strategic Failure, 2015, by Mark Moyar. Forget, but only for a moment or so, the atrocities of the CIA, and consider if indeed in the summer of 2013 the CIA was on to large scale theft of crude oil in Syria, and the CIA Deputy Director publicly stated there were more foreign fighters entering Syria, than had been entering Iraq during the peak of the Iraq War! p. 262.
    (Maybe such CIA assessment was indeed correct!
    If so, then reconsider how a lot of people think that Defense Cuts and Military adventurism have impeded pompt USA miltary response to new areas of engagement. )
    ((My guess is that they and the neo-cons are leaning toward the Trump Towers.
    Drone warfare is a very mean means to war forever!))
    (((Not idle words, should the stock market follow bonds and commodities downward, and again come the broad based quick benefits of belligerence and bombing and new bases, assignments and missions. Also stock valuations of so called Defense Stocks.)))

    Like

    • You read Dr. Wood’s book, 500 pages of evidence, in full. Go to the head of the class, Mr. Williams! Only one in a thousand does that. Kudos.

      Like

      • Bob Williams says:

        A friend read it cover to cover, and passed it on. I found it a fact and foto filled read of a most dark tragedy. Daemonic use of power and energy! Daemonic, just like process theologian David Ray Griffin wrote. JC, some people find Dr. Wood’s book to be liberating!

        Like

      • It’s really interesting, Bob, in that whatever energy source they used on 9/11 has been under development for decades, if not a century, going all the way back to Tesla. Far from daemonic, Dr. Wood regards its use that day as a harbinger of things to come for good, as it was a remarkable demonstration of the power of free energy. This would harmonize with other things – the faked moon landings (were they in fact placing weapons in space?) and the Space Shuttle program that never left earth’s orbit and seemed an exorbitant waste of money. Just connecting dots, it seems that the necessary fakery was done to hide and protect secret technology, and they gave it a showing on 911. Looking back now it is easy to see that it was tested in Oklahoma City.

        That is, in my mind, the importance of Dr. Wood’s work.

        Like

    • JC says:

      Bob, I don’t have any real opinion about Dr. Woods yet. I have read others’ opinions but I reserve judgement until I read her book, which is currently sitting on my reading list for the near future. I think that most of the competing theories to the official story of 911 have much to contribute to convincing people that the official story is bunk. But I don’t believe any one person has yet to write the definitive story about the whole shenanigan.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s