11 Reasons Why The 9/11 Fable is So Popular

http://disquietreservations.blogspot.com/2011/07/11-reasons-why-911-fable-is-so-popular.html

by Saman Mohammadi

1. The bigness of the lie. Adolf Hitler said: "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." William Hazlitt said, "the greater the lie, the more enthusiastically it is believed and greedily swallowed." And Hannah Arendt said:

This doubt of people concerning themselves and the reality of their own experience only reveals what the Nazis have always known: that men determined to commit crimes will find it expedient to organize them on the vastest, most improbable scale. Not only because this renders all punishments provided by the legal system inadequate and absurd; but because the very immensity of the crimes guarantees that the murderers who proclaim their innocence with all manner of lies will be more readily believed than the victims who tell the truth. (The Portable Hannah Arendt; pg. 120).

2. Mythical archetype of Osama Bin Laden and Islamic terrorists. Osama Bin Laden's iconic image and the creed of Islamic jihad against Western civilization is exciting historical material. It makes for a good Hollywood script. People are captivated and scared at the thought of Muslims rising against their oppressors, striking at the heart of the West and destroying America's two biggest cultural artifacts, the Pentagon and World Trade Center. But it is fiction, not reality.

The imperial masters of fiction crafted the Osama Bin Laden myth to symbolically represent the new spirit of the times and the changing nature of the global order in the post-Soviet Union collapse.

How do you lead a disoriented and leaderless mob? The Neocons, CIA, Mossad, and MI6 know the trick. You put your own manufactured revolutionary figurehead in front of the mob to mislead it and misdirect it towards violence and vengeance. In this case that figurehead is Bin Laden. This trick works the same in every society and in every age. Getting in front of the mob with a flag and a simplistic creed to follow is one of the ancient tricks of statecraft.

3. Most people are children who are easily controlled by fear and mentally guided by authoritative rhetoric. They will believe any absurdity if voices of authority tell them it is true. Authority is their father, and government is their mother. The State is infallible to them. They are psychologically incapable of mental rebellion and of questioning government stories and government statements.

4. Peer pressure, and the fear of mockery and ridicule. A lot of people, especially on the left, are afraid of being called a kook and a conspiracy theorist so they don't ever go out on a limb and tell the truth as they know it. They believe it is insane to question the foundations of the official 9/11 story so they don't even bother to examine the facts and evidence that serves as the bedrock of the 9/11 truth movement. The human herd stampedes on the fields of facts and the valleys of truth to get to the desert of ignorance.

5. Terrorism is regarded as a mysterious, hidden and arcane phenomena, and by showing proof that the CIA, Mossad and MI6 are behind terror attacks in the West we give people the knowledge to re-examine their beliefs and to act.

The idea that false flag terrorism can be explained by examining historical data (Operation Gladio in Europe, Pearl Harbor Attack, Gulf of Tonkin, U.S.S. Liberty) and by researching all the evidence complied by average citizens is an idea that discomforts a lot of people. They are put on the spot, because suddenly their false perception of the 9/11 events and terrorism in general unravels and shatters.

6. The financial-terrorism-media-military-industrial-Zionist-congressional complex is a beast of prey that puts out propaganda everyday to create a culture of disinformation and myth. This beast controls the most sacred opinions of the people.

As a result of the government-media war against the public mind the truth is mistaken for a product of insanity while the lie is cherished and protected. In this state most people are like fish in the water, they have no grasp that they are living and breathing in an ocean of lies.

7. Mass social, cultural, and political brainwashing. Western society is controlled by totalitarian governments and a totalitarian media system that includes television, print media, publishing companies, films, music, and other aspects of the culture industry. Conformity is preached and uniformity of thought is encouraged. A radical diversity of opinion about the war on terrorism, 9/11, and other government myths is not allowed.

8. A lack of knowledge of history. A lot of people are unaware of Operation Gladio, the U.S.S. Liberty attack, and the reality of false flag terrorism.

9. A lack of skepticism, curiosity and a sense of wonder. 9/11 truth deniers believe all knowledge about terrorism is settled, and that the government has a monopoly on truth. So they feel free to give up their mental independence on the question of 9/11 and go with the flow instead of using their analytical skills to dig deeper.

10. A lack of humility to admit ignorance. 9/11 truth deniers have a very high opinion of themselves and a low opinion of 9/11 truth-tellers. Why? Because they are arrogant, fearful and close-minded individuals.

11. The 9/11 lie is sacred. To question the lie and say the shadow governments of the United States and Israel were behind the attacks is sacrilegious and blasphemes. Questioning the lie threatens not just an entire worldview, but civilization as we know it. The individual's sense of well-being is based on the lie being real, and he/she undergoes the terror of psychological transformation when coming to face to face with the monstrous truth about 9/11.

The lie is a psychological attack on the community, the individual, and nature. The criminal conspirators behind the attacks and the cover-up want to destroy not just the truth and the dark history of that day, but the very idea of truth itself.

Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants - but debt is the money of slaves

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

Harry Browne

"If [a government] wins a war, it's only because it's fighting another government."

How I Became an Anarchist

Jeff Berwick

Friday, July 15, 2011 at 7:18PM

I remember when I first stumbled upon libertarianism/anarchism/free-markets. For me it was like everything became clear in an instant after 33 years of living in a fog.
As background, I grew up in Canada. A fairly meager existence, really. I grew up in a place where -40C/F is common. That is actually where the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales meet - something on which I had plenty of time to ponder while I delivered newspapers at six in the morning in the pitch black streets where there was only two sounds, the wind howling and the deep crunching of snow beneath your feet.
I rarely went to school. After the age of about 12 I had already figured out it was prison for kids and I escaped whenever I could. I'd escape to my Apple II+ clone computer, called a Unitron, and hack away throughout the day or night.
My computer, really, was my best friend. Perhaps because I was a hacker/programmer, I had an innate feeling that there was a solution to everything. I learned through a lot of trial and error that if you have tried absolutely everything and can't do something on a computer then it isn't a fault with your programming, it is a fault with the system itself - something that usually was rectified with a hardware upgrade or a switch to a new computing system or operating system.
I'd look at the world, which in the early 80s, seemed like a dark and dangerous place. We seemed to always be worried about a pending nuclear attack from the Soviets - something which I now know to be 95% fairy tale by the same people creating all the bogeymen today - but at the time it seemed scary. As well, just coming off of the terribly inflationary 70s and the brutal economic environment, everything seemed to be headed downhill.
I looked at things like wars and very bad economic conditions and I thought there must be a way, somehow, to end wars and to end these bad economic times.
Being young and not having access to free-market style information, the only two choices that I thought were available were the typical "left/right" paradigm that still exists for many people today. I looked at the left and all their ideas about welfare and high taxes to "spread the wealth" and knew, instantly, that that wasn't for me. I then looked at the right - which in Canada, at the time, was the Progressive Conservative party. They talked about things like smaller government and free trade and things like that so I gravitated to them as those things seemed good to me.
The Prime Minister at the time was Brian Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative (PC), and I even signed up, at 14, to be a part of the PC party and even became penpals with Brian Mulroney's daughter. That was when I took this photo which, for me, as an adult anarchist that despises the nation state, is probably the most embarrassing photo I've ever taken of myself.
Jeff Berwick for Prime MinisterI remember what I thought when I took that photo - when I am Prime Minister of Canada one day I'll show everyone this photo and show them that it had been my plan, since a young age, to be Prime Minister. As an aside, this is why I am never too angry with young people who get involved with the political process - because I understand because I did that too before I was enlightened.
Life went on and every year I learned a bit more about the world. I got fired from a government union job because I constantly tried to improve the processes in the mail room where I worked. I even pointed out that we probably only needed 3 people to do the job currently being done by 10. The union boss lady didn't like that one bit. I've never had anyone fire me with such a big grin before.
I bounced around for a while, really not having any idea of what I wanted to do until, really, the internet came out and that's when I knew that I had to do something on the internet.
That something took about 10 years of my life and finally, around 2003, I had some free time to really look into why we, as human kind, can never seem to rid ourselves of wars and poverty. I still had it in my mind that there must be an answer - that we just hadn't found it yet.
So, I decided to buy a sailboat and sail the world and figure out what is going on in the world.
By this point I had seen quite a bit of things and I knew the following. I knew that the internet was going to change everything - and for the better. And, after having worked in the military and for unions and for governments I knew that those places were where hope and happiness died. And, finally, after starting up a number of private businesses and trying to employ people and create wealth I knew that government had only one role in my life and that was to impede me at every step of the process.
One of the first people I came across who started to expand my mind greatly was Doug Casey. In fact, I still remember the first article I read of his. It wasn't anything grand, in fact, it was a basic little commentary that is still on the internet today called "A Short Course in Clearing Customs".
The article caught my eye because I had been traveling and had learned what a pain it was to clear customs in every country and everything that Doug said in that article was how I felt - but I didn't know it was okay to feel that way!
It wasn't too long after that I had somehow found myself sitting at dinner with Doug Casey in Vancouver. He asked me a few things about myself and I told him how I felt, generally, about things, because of my past experience.
Doug sat back and said, "Oh, so you're a libertarian."
My response to him was, "What's a libertarian?"
I didn't even know there was a word for wanting to be free of government control! That's the way the government likes it, too. As long as they can keep people thinking there is only left or right - which are both just heavily statist views with only slight differences - then they can keep people from discovering that government is the problem, not the solution.
Armed with the new-found knowledge that I was a libertarian I headed straight home to my computer and looked up everything I could find to read on the subject. During dinner I had asked Doug many questions about how a world would work without government. All the usual questions that neophytes ask. How would the roads work? Firefighters? Police?
Doug was very patient with me but finally he mentioned that there was a book that had answers to all those questions. It's actually almost a pamphlet it is such a short book. And, it is available for free on the internet. It is called "The Market for Liberty".
I don't remember the exact date I read it but it was some time around 2004. On that date, after a long and circuitous path I finally answered the question I asked when I was young.
How can we end all wars? End government. How can we end poverty? End government. How can we, as humans, reach our full potential? Through peace, property rights and the non-aggression principle - something which is impossible with government.
As Stefan Molyneux explains in the video below, and as I knew from my days as a programmer, if you cannot find the solution to a problem then it is the system itself which is broken.
When trying to solve a problem if things get more and more and more complex, like they did when people thought the earth was the center of the solar system, it is usually a sign that it is the system - the whole basis of the theory - that is wrong. Look at government today and the gigantic mess it is in trying to rid the world of poverty and to improve the human condition through the coercive force of the government.
The way people felt the day they realized the sun was at the center of the solar system is how I felt the day I realized that the way towards peace and prosperity for humanity is in anarchism - living without a forceful ruler.

Who Owes What to Whom?

The Successful Have No Obligation to "Give Back"

February 2002 • Volume: 52 • Issue: 2


For a society that has fed, clothed, housed, cared for, informed, entertained, and otherwise enriched more people at higher levels than any in the history of the planet, there sure is a lot of groundless guilt in America.



Manifestations of that guilt abound. The example that peeves me the most is the one we often hear from well-meaning philanthropists who adorn their charitable giving with this little chestnut: “I want to give something back.” It always sounds as though they’re apologizing for having been successful.



Translated, that statement means something like this: “I’ve accumulated some wealth over the years. Never mind how I did it, I just feel guilty for having done it. There’s something wrong with my having more than somebody else, but don’t ask me to explain how or why because it’s just a fuzzy, uneasy feeling on my part. Because I have something, I feel obligated to have less of it. It makes me feel good to give it away because doing so expunges me of the sin of having it in the first place. Now I’m a good guy, am I not?”



It was apparent to me how deeply ingrained this mindset has become when I visited the gravesite of John D. Rockefeller at Lakeview Cemetery in Cleveland a couple years ago. The wording on a nearby plaque commemorating the life of this remarkable entrepreneur implied that giving much of his fortune away was as worthy an achievement as building the great international enterprise, Standard Oil, that produced it in the first place. The history books most kids learn from these days go a step further. They routinely criticize people like Rockefeller for the wealth they created and for the profit motive, or self-interest, that played a part in their creating it, while lauding them for relieving themselves of the money.



More than once, philanthropists have bestowed contributions on my organization and explained they were “giving something back.” They meant that by giving to us, they were paying some debt to society at large. It turns out that, with few exceptions, these philanthropists really had not done anything wrong. They made money in their lives, to be sure, but they didn’t steal it. They took risks they didn’t have to. They invested their own funds, or what they first borrowed and later paid back with interest. They created jobs, paid market wages to willing workers, and thereby generated livelihoods for thousands of families. They invented things that didn’t exist before, some of which saved lives and made us healthier. They manufactured products and provided services, for which they asked and received market prices. They had willing and eager customers who came back for more again and again. They had stockholders to whom they had to offer favorable returns. They also had competitors, and had to stay on top of things or lose out to them. They didn’t use force to get where they got; they relied on free exchange and voluntary contract. They paid their bills and debts in full. And every year they donated some of their profits to lots of community charities no law required them to support. Not a one of them that I know ever did any jail time for anything.



So how is it that anybody can add all that up and still feel guilty? I suspect that if they are genuinely guilty of anything, it’s allowing themselves to be intimidated by the losers and the envious of the world–the people who are in the redistribution business either because they don’t know how to create anything or they simply choose the easy way out. They just take what they want, or hire politicians to take it for them.



Or like a few in the clergy who think that wealth is not made but simply “collected,” the redistributionists lay a guilt trip on people until they disgorge their lucre–notwithstanding the Tenth Commandment against coveting. Certainly, people of faith have an obligation to support their church, mosque, or synagogue, but that’s another matter and not at issue here.



Real Giving Back

A person who breaches a contract owes something, but it’s to the specific party on the other side of the deal. Steal someone else’s property and you owe it to the person you stole it from, not society, to give it back. Those obligations are real and they stem from a voluntary agreement in the first instance or from an immoral act of theft in the second. This business of “giving something back” simply because you earned it amounts to manufacturing mystical obligations where none exist in reality. It turns the whole concept of “debt” on its head. To give it “back” means it wasn’t yours in the first place, but the creation of wealth through private initiative and voluntary exchange does not involve the expropriation of anyone’s rightful property.



How can it possibly be otherwise? By what rational measure does a successful person in a free market, who has made good on all his debts and obligations in the traditional sense, owe something further to a nebulous entity called society? If Entrepreneur X earns a billion dollars and Entrepreneur Y earns two billion, would it make sense to say that Y should “give back” twice as much as X? And if so, who should decide to whom he owes it? Clearly, the whole notion of “giving something back” just because you have it is built on intellectual quicksand.



Successful people who earn their wealth through free and peaceful exchange may choose to give some of it away, but they’d be no less moral and no less debt-free if they gave away nothing. It cheapens the powerful charitable impulse that all but a few people possess to suggest that charity is equivalent to debt service or that it should be motivated by any degree of guilt or self-flagellation.



A partial list of those who honestly do have an obligation to give something back would include bank robbers, shoplifters, scam artists, deadbeats, and politicians who “bring home the bacon.” They have good reason to feel guilt, because they’re guilty.



But if you are an exemplar of the free and entrepreneurial society, one who has truly earned and husbanded what you have and have done nothing to injure the lives, property, or rights of others, you are a different breed altogether. When you give, you should do so because of the personal satisfaction you derive from supporting worthy causes, not because you need to salve a guilty conscience.

letter from Claire McCaskill

Dear Dr. Graviss,




Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about U.S. trade policies. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.



As you are well aware, Congress faces many challenges regarding America's foreign trade relationships. Currently, the U.S. is still working on several pending Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and the global community is in its 10th year of the Doha Development Round of the WTO. While these FTAs have the potential to increase production in the U.S., we have to make sure that our trade policy doesn't result in an unmanageable trade deficit that ships jobs overseas.



I continue to closely examine each trade agreement, including those still undergoing negotiation, being sought or already agreed to. I recognize that a well-structured trade agreement can provide highly sought after opportunities for Missouri producers, including those in our agricultural and manufacturing sectors, to export their products to foreign markets with fewer bureaucratic hurdles. In fact, I support the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement because it has the potential to allow Missouri businesses to drastically expand exports to Korea, which is already America's fifth largest export market with over $5.3 billion in exports. The agreement will provide expanded access for U.S.-made automobiles, including those made in Missouri, and be particularly beneficial for Missouri's corn, pork, poultry and dairy producers. The agreement has the support of both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the United Auto Workers union. I am hopeful this agreement will be approved by the U.S. Senate this summer.



In the near future, trade agreements being finalized with Panama and Columbia may also come before the Senate for consideration. I look forward to closely studying the final details of these agreements to determine if they will be similarly beneficial to Missouri.



Even as we consider new trade agreements and celebrate the positive economic impact they can have, we must also assist those industries that may not benefit, or even be harmed, by such agreements. I have and continue to support the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program. This federal program provides re-employment services and benefits to workers who lose their jobs as a result of increased foreign trade. The TAA program is critical to those Americans who have no choice but to start over when their company moves some or all of its operations overseas. You may also be interested to know that, in December 2010, I supported the Omnibus Trade Act, which kept expanded TAA programs that were authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act running until February 12, 2011. Unfortunately, bickering in Congress has prevented a further extension since then. If you would like more information regarding TAA, please visit http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/.



The U.S. is the world's leading trade partner and with that comes a responsibility to establish trade policies that strengthen our role in the global economy, but also protect American workers and industry. I will continue to work to advance these important objectives in the U.S. Senate.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.







Sincerely,







Claire McCaskill

United States Senator

The Rise of the Barter Economy

By: Peter Schiff | Tue, Jul 5, 2011

Share

PrintEmail

Imagine a day when you go to buy a quart of milk, ask the price, and the cashier says, "that'll be a tenth ounce silver." As the US dollar's decline accelerates, several efforts around the country are trying to make this vision a reality.
Historically, paying for items in silver or gold was actually quite common. We happen to live in an unusual time and place where generations have grown up trading exclusively in paper. While my parents still used dimes made of silver, we have now gone several decades with no precious metals in any of our official coinage. But this system of money by government fiat is unsustainable.
While the practice of bartering precious metals directly for goods and services has continued on a small-scale over the last few decades, the 2000s saw the beginning of organized efforts to revive gold and silver as money.

THE LIBERTY DOLLAR

One such effort was spearheaded by an eccentric mintmaster from Hawaii named Bernard Von Nothaus. He called his project the Liberty Dollar, and it centered on privately minted gold and silver rounds as well as deposit certificates for precious metals held in his firm's vaults.
I had many reservations about how the project was implemented - coins were minted with a fixed US dollar amount at which they were supposed to circulate, the dollar amount was well above the spot price of the metal, and authorized "distributors" were allowed to pocket the difference (which often resulted in buyers paying far higher prices for their gold than what they would have paid had they simply bought, say, Canadian Maple Leafs instead) - but I believe Nothaus' idea was a good one, even if the product was over-priced. Tellingly, despite the obvious flaws, public participation grew steadily from 1998 until 2007, when federal agents raided the Liberty Dollar's offices on trumped-up charges of counterfeiting.
Really, they were charging him with competing with the US dollar's monopoly privileges by offering a better product. It's important to note that the case against Nothaus was built around his coins looking similar to official US coinage (though no one actually mistook Liberty Dollars for US currency), and not around encouraging people to use precious metals as circulating money.

DIGITAL GOLD

Next came a crop of internet-based currencies backed by gold and silver. Most prominent among them are eGold and GoldMoney. Both were designed to allow customers to open online accounts that were valued in, and backed by, gold and silver bullion.
eGold was perhaps the better known of the two until it, too, was shut down by the US government on charges of money laundering. eGold was positioned more as an online payment system than a means of holding bullion. Due to the anonymous nature of the transactions - it was akin to spending cash - the authorities alleged that it was being used by criminal enterprises to funnel illegal funds. But mostly it was being used by regular people to begin saving and trading in money that holds its value. eGold had a transparent system of annual audits and live transaction screening by any user to keep the system honest. It, too, was growing robustly, and was putting up strong competition against PayPal until the authorities intervened.
GoldMoney, founded by my friend James Turk, has remained in operation by keeping its principal operations overseas and by cooperating fully with onerous US financial regulations. It offers similar services to eGold, but with an emphasis on long-term storage. GoldMoney improves upon traditional storage by locating offshore, offering real-time online account access, and providing extra liquidity. These services do come at a cost, however. Still, over the course of the last decade, GoldMoney has swelled to over $2 billion in assets. Clearly, many people want to trade gold and silver over US dollars.
Digital gold is a niche service, but I think the public's rapid embrace of these projects - none older than ten years - shows that investors are viewing gold and silver as more than mere commodities, but once again seeing them as money. This could signal a paradigm shift back to tradition, which is good news for any precious metals holder.

STRAIGHT UP BARTER

While digital currencies are neat, in practical terms, nothing beats the resilience of traditional barter of bullion for goods and services. If you actually own the physical gold and silver that you intend to save or trade, then you can be sure it will be there until you're ready to sell. You don't have to trust anyone except yourself.
In that vein, several efforts have popped up around the country to simply get people trading gold and silver rather than dollars. Since the transactions involved are usually small, such as buying lunch at a local diner, silver is typically the metal of choice.
There are several hotspots for this sort of activity.
Philadelphia has one group, DelValley Silver, that has fostered a local barter market there by encouraging merchants to accept silver coins in addition to dollars. DelValley is also a silver dealer, but they sell privately minted rounds, which can be harder to liquidate than well-known coins like the American Gold Eagle and Canadian Maple Leaf.
Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, many merchants associated with the Free State Project have begun accepting gold and silver at their businesses. Innovation abounds here and the practice of encasing small amounts of silver in laminated cards seems to be the most successful.
Shire Silver encloses silver and gold wire in their cards and measures them in terms of grams. It's much easier to trade a flat, plastic card containing a gram of silver than to carry around a 1 oz coin. However, even their website will admit that the premium on such a small amount of silver makes it less than ideal for investment purposes. Of course, when you're ready to barter, they'll be happy to take your 1 oz rounds in return for some Shire Silver. And that Shire Silver is being accepted by more and more merchants across New Hampshire and beyond.
Another variation, from a group based in Phoenix, Arizona, encloses a pre-1965 US dime inside the laminated card. Before '65, every dime contained 90% silver, making them worth about $2.50 each in today's debased dollars. That's why you won't find any pre-'65 dimes in your change from the grocery store. However, one fellow had the clever idea of putting them in these cards so they could trade at their silver value without getting mixed in with the worthless dimes we carry around today. The same group even created a free iPhone app that translates US dollar prices into various amounts of silver (more info here).
While I'll still be selling regular old bullion coins and bars at Euro Pacific Precious Metals, because these are the best way to invest in physical precious metals, I am energized by these efforts. The great thing about holding and bartering physical precious metals is that there is no central company running the operations, like with the digital gold currencies, and therefore there's no single person the government can go after.
(My new offshore bank, Euro Pacific Bank, Ltd., will soon be offering Visa-branded debit cards back by individual holdings of gold or silver. Euro Pacific Bank customers will be able to purchase gold from the bank, have it stored, and then access their holdings directly using their Visa cards to either make purchases though merchants or withdraw cash from banks and ATMs. Unfortunately, due to the reasons described above, I cannot offer this service to US customers. For more information about my offshore brokerage and banking companies, please visit www.europacintl.com.)

THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL

Besides these grassroots efforts at building barter communities, I'm seeing a cultural shift in favor of precious metals. Utah recently passed a law establishing gold and silver as legal tender and abolishing state capital gains taxes on their appreciation. I was interviewed for a new animated film called Silver Circle that features a rebel group in the near future which mints silver coins in defiance of an even more aggressive Federal Reserve. More and more people are starting to watch the gold price as often as they watch the Dow.
Overall, this bodes well for our investments and for our country. If gold and silver are successfully re-monetized, our children may know a rate of economic growth not seen since our great-grandparents were in their prime. And prices may never return to today's levels again.