9/11 hijacked by fake heroes

Stuck pigs (and presstitutes) squeal

By Paul Craig Roberts

September 22, 2011

Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman

As an economist I have never had much patience with Paul Krugman’s economics, stuck as he is in 1940s-era Keynesian demand-side economics. I have sometimes concluded that Krugman had rather denounce Ronald Reagan that to acknowledge that supply-side economists have established that fiscal policy has supply-side, not just demand-side, effects.

However, Krugman does display at times a moral conscience. He did so on September 11 in his New York Times column, “The Years of Shame.” Krugman wrote that 9/11 was hijacked by “fake heroes” who used the event “to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight” and that “our professional pundits” lent their support to the misuse of the event.

The stuck pigs, of course, squealed loudly. The war criminal, Donald Rumsfeld, publicly cancelled his New York Times subscription, and the complicit presstitutes in Washington’s wars of aggression jumped on Krugman with spikes and hatchets.

Perhaps Krugman meant to use the plural and say “unrelated wars.” The US government has made war on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, resulting in massive destruction of homes, infrastructure, and lives of civilians, all in the name of one lie or the other. In addition, the US government is conducting military operations against the populations of three more Muslim countries—Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, with extensive loss of civilian life in Pakistan, a US ally. Drones are sent in week after week that blow up schools, medical centers, and farm communities, and each time Washington announces that they have killed “militants,” “al Qaeda,” “Taliban leaders.”

Thanks to what Krugman calls “our professional pundits” and Gerald Celente calls “presstitutes,” the American people know little if anything about the murder of countless civilians and displacement of millions of others in these six Muslim countries, which the Bush/Obama governments regard as “security threats,” or habitats of small elements that are “security threats,” to the single super-power.
Before I continue, think for a minute about the level of threat posed by these Muslim countries that lack internal unity, an air force, a navy, a modern army, and nuclear ICBMs. Compare this “threat” to the Soviet threat, which, at least, was potentially real. The Soviets had the Red Army, which had defeated Hitler and his high-class war machine. The Soviet Union had an amazing array of extremely powerful ICBMs with single and multiple nuclear warheads, and nuclear submarines outfitted with nuclear-armed missiles.

Somehow we survived 46 years of this threat without going to war. But Iraq, which all but the most stupid people on earth now know had no “weapons of mass destruction,” was such a threat that the US government felt not only compelled to invade but also justified to lie to the United Nations in order to attack and destroy a country that had done nothing whatsoever to us and posed no threat whatsoever.

The same for Afghanistan. The Taliban posed no threat whatsoever to the United States or its European allies.

Pakistan is a US ally; yet, Washington has murdered thousands of Pakistani civilians. The liars in Washington and the presstitute media always claim that murdered civilians are “al Qaeda terrorists.” Every time Washington blows up a hospital, a farmer’s home, a school, Washington issues a report that it has just killed some al Qaeda leader. Some of these leaders have been reported killed multiple times.

I’m not surprised that this does not sit well with Paul Krugman. The best thing in the Keynesians’ resume is not their economics—although it was better, perhaps, than the economics that could not explain the Great Depression—but their moral conscience. Keynesian economists, for the most part, cared about people and what happened to them. I knew many of the Keynesians and debated before university and professional audiences a handful of Keynesian Nobel prize-winners. I never thought that they were callous people. I never expected to miss them.

To return to Krugman: His message comes across most powerfully in the presstitute pundits’ response to him. Michelle Malkin misinterpreted Krugman’s courage as cowardice and called him a “smug coward.”

“Coward” was an epithet that the presstitutes seized upon. A Washington Post writer, Erik Wimple, declared Krugman “cowardly.”

After establishing Krugman to be a “coward,” the presstitutes, who delight in murdering “towel-heads” in six countries, escalated their attack on Krugman. Peter Bella declared Krugman to be “vile” and to have “no conscience.”

Bella’s interpretation of a moral conscience as its antithesis is a typical presstitute response. It led to attacks on the New York Times for having a “cowardly,” “bewildering,” “arrogant,” “vile,” contributor who “has no conscience” as a columnist.

Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post declared the New York Times for publishing Krugman’s column to be “a spiritual wasteland,” this from a “newspaper” that many regard as a CIA asset.

In other words, shut Krugman up. Cancel his column. We don’t want to hear anything from anyone that casts doubt on Washington’s murder, maiming, and dislocation of millions of people because of a “threat” that is a total lie. We are the exceptional nation. We are the light unto the world. Ordinary laws do not apply to us because we are exceptional. Laws are for underlings. We have “freedom and democracy.” Anyone who doubts us is evil and a terrorist and a pinko-liberal-commie.

It will be interesting to see if Krugman’s column survives his statement of truth. It will tell us whether America has succumbed totally to being the land of the liars, or whether a person of moral conscience still has a voice.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan. His latest book, How the Economy was Lost, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached at PaulCraigRoberts[at]yahoo.com

***

Hoffman's Afterward: It is almost certain that some self-righteous skeptics who doubt the official miracle story of how the buildings were destroyed in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 (a doubt I share - see this writer's review of David Ray Griffin's excellent new book, 9/11: Ten Years Later), will call Krugman to task for accepting the official account of 9/11, even as he criticizes how it was exploited by war criminals. They may even question Dr. Krugman's integrity. I strongly disagree with this refusal to acknowledge the good will and sincerity of some of the people who accept the official story of anything, whether it be the mystical statistic of "Six Million Jews"  killed by the Nazis, or the "science" of "global warming." If we despise everyone who does not doubt everything that we doubt, we will end up supporting an inquisition in reverse -- of true believers.  Exhibiting a Pharisaic pride in the fact that we don't believe what those "compromised Publicans" believe (Luke 18:9-14), doesn't help advance the cause of truth; more humility might.

***

Joseph Sobran libeled as a Nazi by The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg

Neocon Liar Jeffrey “Dr. Goebbels" Goldberg Dishonors the Memory of Joseph Sobran

by Michael Hoffman | www. RevisionistHistory.org | Oct. 13, 2010

Jeffrey Goldberg is the Israeli agent who is currently national correspondent for The Atlantic magazine. He helped engineer America’s invasion of Iraq based on the propagation of Goldberg’s well-publicized lie, published in the March, 2002 issue of The New Yorker and broadcast on NPR’s "All Things Considered” in February, 2003, that Saddam Hussein was an ally of the alleged 9/11 terror group, Al Qaeda. Now Goldberg is lying again. In a column published Oct. 12 on the website of The Atlantic magazine, Goldberg indicts the eminent Catholic historian and philosopher Joseph Sobran as a “Nazi.” This craven and despicable defamation had to wait until Sobran was dead and could no longer sue for libel.

It seems that Goldberg, his pal Greenberg, and a network of apologists for Israeli war crimes, had their ox gored when the New York Times published an obituary for Mr. Sobran which did not stigmatize him with the obligatory “Holocaust denier” Newspeak, preferring to describe him with the more moderate term, “Holocaust skeptic.”

This minor deviation from the approved script unleashed the hounds of Holocaust halachic correctness, in this case on the Times and on the memory of the deceased. Exploiting the Newspeak mechanisms of the imposed word “Holocaust,” the following fallacy has been advanced by Mr. Goldberg: "Imagine an obituary of a public figure who had denied that World War I had taken place. Or that fifty percent of the Civil War battles we know to have occurred did not, in fact, occur, and that there had been no slavery in the antebellum South.”

Sorry, Mr. Goldberg, but Mr. Sobran never “denied" World War II, or any battle therein; or that the persecution and murder of Judaics had actually occurred. He questioned the extent of the latter; a useful and worthy scientific inquiry which inquisitors like you can’t handle. This writer was present at Sobran’s speech in Irvine, California on June 22, 2002, when he asked, "Why on earth is it 'anti-Jewish' to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination? Surely these are controversial conclusions; but if so, let the controversy rage..."

It was Zionism’s de facto propaganda machine which, in the late 1960s, began referring to Adolf Hitler’s crackdown on Judaics as a “Holocaust,” and in this context the neologism was imposed as the standard against which all skeptics are now forever measured and judged.

But this measurement is on a scale devised by bigoted Orwellian thought police like Deborah Lipstadt. It is not a reflection of precision historiography, but of hysteria and megalomania. If Sobran flunks  Zionism’s rigged test of what makes a man a non-Nazi, it is only because the whole argument is as stage-managed as Goldberg’s own denial of the Israeli holocaust against the Palestinians and Lebanese.

I have yet to see a  New York Times obituary for a prominent Israeli apologist in which the deceased was described either as a “denier” of or a “skeptic” toward the fact of Israeli mass murder in Deir Yassin in 1948, Beirut in August of 1982 or Gaza in December of 2008 and January of 2009. Denying Israeli slaughter doesn’t have a special name or category and does not register as an offense against morals in the establishment media of the West.

Goldberg and his network exhibit the familiar totalitarian, Talmudic mentality: they desire to micro-manage every detail of how we perceive Joseph Sobran and how his memory is presented. If the portrayal is not sufficiently debased, they will proceed to dishonor the dead man themselves, in the name of that irresistible shibboleth, fighting Nazism. Their own Nazi-Zionism cannot be an issue, of course; any more than Jeffrey “Dr. Goebbels” Goldberg has been held accountable for his Big Lie about Saddam and Al Qaeda, which helped frog-march America into war with Iraq. He is still a well paid, high profile journalist on the national scene.

Goldberg can lie us into a calamitous war and still lecture us on the supposed venality of Sobran, who lost his position as senior editor of National Review magazine because he would not lie.

Jeff, you’re not fit to shine Joe’s shoes, much less weigh him in the balance of your twisted, dictatorial version of history, to which all must conform or forfeit their reputation.

Hoffman edits Revisionist History newsletter. He writes from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

The Death of a ‘Holocaust Skeptic’

By Jeffrey Goldberg | The Atlantic | Oct. 12, 2010

The death of Joseph Sobran,  far-right columnist more-or-less associated with The National Review, even though the late William F. Buckley found his anti-Semitism semi-intolerable, was marked by an obituary in the Times by William Grimes, who wrote the following strange sentences about his subject:

Mr. Sobran's isolationist views on American foreign policy and Israel became increasingly extreme. He took a skeptical line on the Holocaust and said the Sept. 11 terror attacks were a result of American foreign policy in the Middle East, which he believed that a Jewish lobby directed. Not surprisingly, he spent much of his time defending himself against charges of anti-Semitism.

"Nobody has ever accused me of the slightest personal indecency to a Jew," he said in a speech delivered at a 2002 conference of the Institute for Historical Review. "My chief offense, it appears, has been to insist that the state of Israel has been a costly and treacherous 'ally' to the United States. As of last Sept. 11, I should think that is undeniable. But I have yet to receive a single apology for having been correct." 

Friend-of-Goldblog David Greenberg, the historian, wrote to the public editor of the Times, asking, just exactly, what it means to take "a skeptical line" on the Holocaust? And why would the Times mention the "Institute for Historical Review" without mentioning that it is the country's premier Holocaust denial outfit? Here is the response he received, complete with his name misspelled:

Mr. Greenburg:

Thank you for writing us.

I reached out to Bill McDonald, editor of the obituary pages, reached out to William Grimes, the writer on the piece.  His response is provided below:

**
"I cannot see how describing someone as taking a skeptical line on the Holocaust can be interpreted as anything other than indefensible. He was not a Holocaust denier, precisely, but what he called a Holocaust agnostic. At any rate, both of the reader's suppositions are correct. First,  he did wonder if Hitler had pursued  a policy of genocide. Supposition two also applies, he did not deny that many Jews died, but suspected that the number was exaggerated. Space--the guy had about 300 words' worth of survivors--did not really permit me to go into the details, but the Sobran quote surely gives the flavor."
**

I hope this helps clarify things for you.  It seems that The Times would have liked the opportunity to say more about this, but unfortunately space constraints made it difficult for them to include the whole thing in detail.

Once again, I appreciate you writing and bringing this to our attention.  It is greatly appreciated.

Best,
Joseph Burgess
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times

A fairly fatuous reply. Imagine an obituary of a public figure who had denied that World War I had taken place. Or that fifty percent of the Civil War battles we know to have occurred did not, in fact, occur, and that there had been no slavery in the antebellum South. Would the Times describe this person as a  "Civil War skeptic"? Or would it have described him as delusional?

A much better response to this obituary came from Jeet Heer:

The fact is, Sobran did more than "take a skeptical line of the Holocaust." Sobran, to be blunt, became a Nazi fellow-traveler. Most readers of the Times won't know what the Institute for Historical Review is. The name is certainly benign enough. It is in fact an organization devoted to Holocaust denial and other forms of Nazi apologetics. (At a recent talk Mark Weber, director of the Institute, argued that had England made peace with Nazi Germany the result would have been "an Axis-dominated Pax Europa ... [which] would have been prosperous, socially progressive, politically stable, and technologically advanced, with an extensive, continent-wide transportation and communications network, conscientious environmental policies, and a comprehensive healthcare system. At the same time, the continent would have remained ethnically and culturally European. Large scall immigration of non-Europeans would have been unthinkable.")

Leaving aside the issue of Holocaust denial, anyone who takes the time to read Sobran's writing will immediately notice that he shared many of the ideas of the European far right from the early 20th century, in particular the belief that Jews are an alien, nearly monolithic and subversive force whose main goal is to destroy Western Civilization. I usually avoid emotive language but there really was a Nazi thread in Sobran's thinking (combined of course with many other arguably related threads like his defense of the Confederacy, his anti-feminism, and his belief in all sorts of conspiracy theories).

***

"Synagogue Bomb Plot" - Latest Zionist Publicity Coup

Copyright ©2009 by Michael Hoffman

The round-up of patsies in the FBI/police-provoked "synagogue bomb plot" (the ersatz weapons and explosives were, as per usual, furnished by the cops themselves), is only the latest Zionist publicity coup, timed to coincide with the hyping of the Iranian missile launch, the visit of assassin-master Binyamin "Bibi" Netanyahu to the White House, and Jeffrey Goldberg's Holocaustomania-drenched apologia for Netanyahu's murderous racism, in the pages of the oh-so hip-and-humane New York Times.

Dim-witted news anchors across the television and radio air waves and satellite rays have confidently repeated the account of the NY synagogue bomb plot exactly as told to them by "the police and the FBI." Nary a dollop of skepticism do the media offer to salt this goose, in spite of the fact that it is has been conclusively documented that the Federal government from Bush and Cheney to Condi and Colin lied to us big time concerning Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass distraction. 

Loud mouth Cheney, who has taken a cue from the rabbis and decided that the best policy is the chutzpagh tactic --  of lying outrageously with a straight face about "enhanced interrogation" and the "threat of terror" -- lied most outrageously during his time in office, by claiming Saddam was mixed up with with Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks. In reporting Cheney's recent speeches defending torture, nowhere have the major media reminded the people of Cheney's most easily documented big lie -- about Saddam/Al Qaeda. 

The little shadow play in Mayor Bloomberg's New York, with the-suckers-who-would-be synagogue bombers (James Cromitie, Laguerre Payen, David Williams and Onta Williams), is a harbinger of our through-a-glass-darkly future, wherein any sustained rejection by the American people of the Israeli sodomy of Uncle Sam, will be met by a backpack-detonated nuke in downtown (pick your radioactive poison): Seattle, Chicago or Houston; said backpack to be detonated by an A-rab suicide bomber whose passport will miraculously drift down from the mushroom cloud, and land intact at the feet of Sean Hannity. The media will report this mother of all terror acts exactly as the covert terrorists --which is to say U.S. and Israeli intelligence --will want it reported, and that will end the peace and populism movements, as well as the Bill of Rights as we know it.

The Cryptocracy permits us the safety-valve, playpen simulacra of what we imagine to be petition, exposé, voting, organizing and protesting, but since It owns the major broadcast and print media, and commands the loyalty of the time-serving, mercenary bureaucrats in law enforcement and intelligence, anytime it begins to look as though We the People will actually revolt and seriously alter U.S. policy toward the Israeli war machine, or the Carlyle Group's military-industrial profit-complex, or the bankster's speculative ability to raise oil prices in a time of falling demand for oil, then the whole Yankee Doodle Spirit of '76 townhall populist pitchfork rebellion will be locked down and locked up in a two-pronged motion made possible by one big repeat of 9/11.

This can happen mainly because the scum of the earth, i.e. "news" executives at the six main TV networks (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX and PBS), and at National Public Radio and the newspaper chains, are all disproportionately staffed by agents and mouthpieces of the police and security apparatus of the Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG) itself.

As the curtain rises on today's comically contrived, off-Broadway synagogue bombshow, confirmed and repeated with a sober and straight face by a turkey flock of reporters and news execs, we are seeing our future in microcosm - captive to the secret agents of the state who fuel, feed, arm and direct the "antisemitic terrorists" and "jihadists" who will bomb us to smithereens if we don't loyally submit to the Dick Cheney apocalypse-now paradigm of Zionist-goodness vs. Third World-wickedness -- the perpetual war for perpetual peace dystopia.

Top Priority: The loudest alarm we should be sounding every day of our lives, in every imaginable forum and street corner, if we would have any hope of halting this black op, false flag, Arlington Road process, is the clarion alert to all Americans that every domestic "terror" plot or actual attack should always first be assumed to be a U.S. government covert action, until proved otherwise.

The sad little rehearsal with the four patsies today in New York, preceded by the Air Force One flyover Manhattan stagecraft, are intimations of a government-orchestrated terrorist spectacular in our future that will end the Bill of Rights as we know it, if we fail to boldly call the media on its mouthpiece status as a servile publicity arm of American "security forces." 

We must reinstate the sleuthing reporter's vocation of uncovering hidden works of darkness by bigshots in high places, not the Cryptocracy's "right" to lock us down --and up-- due to a depraved "news" media that's part of the play. 

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

Hoffman is the author of Judaism Discovered, the only book about Judaism ever banned by Amazon.com

Ghost of Bin Laden summoned to Gaza

It has been reported that the tortured and brainwashed "accused masterminds" of the 9/11 terror attacks will go on trial at Gitmo on the last day of George W. Bulls**t's presidency, Jan. 19. How's that for a "coincidence"?

And here's another one: a "tape" recording (not a CD, because Bin Laden's ghost has not caught up with modern technology), of the voice of none other than Osama himself hit the air waves of the dumbed down and infantilized American media today, wherein we were told that Santa Claus/Tooth fairy Bin Laden is alive and well, and issuing press releases from his cave somewhere in the armpit of western Asia.

If you accept this malarkey at face value you need read no further. For the rest of you: what do you think this latest covert-op by the western intelligence agency that operates "Al Qaeda" signifies? My hunch is that it signifies desperation, when even CNN is broadcasting reports on counterfeit-Israel's white phosphorus burning of civilians in Gaza, accompanied by graphic footage of child victims of this "nasty" incendiary, which CNN was airing yesterday.

As the justification for the Israeli holocaust in Gaza skates on ice that daily grows as thin as Paris Hilton's waistline, the white male Republican base in the US needs to be reassured that the Fox Noose fairy tale is true, the rabbis and Zionists of counterfeit-Israel really are "fighting for the West." Consequently, the spectre of Osama is summoned to the seance and made to mouth a Gaza script which implies that Hamas is an arm of the same Muslim crazies who, we are told, "masterminded" the Sept. 11 attacks.

***