AntiWar Uses Insulting “Conspiracy Theories” Label to Dismiss Other Journalists and Defend Wikileaks

by Scott Creighton

If you can’t make a good case for your argument what you do is provide no links, misrepresent quotes, and throw around trollishly childish and demeaning insults. Then declare victory and leave in a huff”  Trolls’ “How To” Guide for Winning Any Debate

Jason Ditz at AntiWar has just convinced me to remove AntiWar from my blog list. His write-up on the al Jazeera interview with Julian Assange sealed the deal.

“The paucity of information on Israel in the early WikiLeaks releases led to a flurry of speculations and conspiracy theories, insisting WikiLeaks may have made a secret deal with the Netanyahu government or that the lack of data proved the organization’s insincerity as a whistle-blower. After all, in a dump of 250,000+ classified documents from the US, surely Israel would figure pretty prominently.

And actually it does. Though the information has not been released there will be a considerable dump, according to reports…” Jason Ditz

Jason leaves out one important detail and that is, Julian Assange has stated that the Israel related files won’t be released… for 6 months.

“We will publish 3700 files and the source is the American embassy in Tel Aviv. Prime Minister Netanyahu was traveling to Paris to talk to the US ambassador there. You will see more information about that in six months.” Julian Assange

Assange also claims that they have some 3,700 files pertaining to this subject and some of them will be published in the next 6 months, depending on the sources.

There are 3,700 files related to Israel and the source of 2,700 files is Israel. In the next six months we intend to publish more files depending on our sources,” Julian Assange

“Depending on our sources”?

What exactly does that mean?  I thought Bradley Manning was their source (singular). Who are the “sources” that Assange says is in charge of the Israel-related “leaks” that they have and what do they have to do with Wikileaks’ release of those important documents?

Does Assange not know what the term “leak’ means?

Clearly Assange is not talking about releasing all of those documents at the same time, though that implication is made by Jason Ditz’ article.

When Jason says “there will be a considerable dump” that is the implication, but that is certainly not what Assange himself said. If Jason has another source, he should cite it.

But he doesn’t. In fact, he doesn’t give a link in his article to the original text of the interview put out by al Jazeera. Instead, Ditz only links to a small write-up on Mondoweiss as his source for his article.

This is an unusually poorly written article by Jason Ditz. Many readers here know I frequently post work by Jason on this site as that he is usually very well supported by links in all of his work over at AntiWar.

He not only insults honest researchers with the derogatory “conspiracy theory” label ( like any good neocon cheerleader did back in the day when we were all busy writing about how there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq)  but again like our old opposition, he fails to provide credible links for reference and misrepresents the text of that interview (to suit his needs apparently)

It seems this is nothing new for AntiWar these days.

One headline on their site seems to promote the idea that Wikileaks is spilling the beans on Israel with regard to a 2007 Israeli attack on a Syrian facility. Israel has never denied the attack. The only question has been what the facility really was. Well, according to the Wiki”leak”, that facility actually was a nuclear plant, made for aggressive purposes (not civilian), and made probably with the help of the North Koreans. All this, according to Wikileaks’ Condi Rice memo, which sites like AntiWar are actively helping to promote as “the truth”

This comes just at the time when the U.S. needs to help create a pretext for the invasion and regime change of North Korea.

Let me just sum that up: AntiWar is pushing Condi Rice’s old propaganda that North Korea helped Syria build a reactor for agressive purposes and so Israel was justified in blowing it up (an act of war)

And AntiWar is pushing this Condi Rice propaganda because Julian Assange is such a hero? And that is it?

AntiWar has been a favorite site of mine for a while. I have turned a blind eye to their recent Assange hero-worship and Justin Raimondo’s neoliberal/libertarian agenda. But after Jason’s poorly crafted and insulting article, I cannot in good conscience continue to do that.

There are many reasons that valid researchers have concluded that Wikileaks is a CIA front operation and just one of those reasons involves Assange’s reluctance to release anything that presents Israel’s zionist agenda in a negative light.

For Ditz to off-handedly reject valid concerns which should be obvious to any journalist at this time, with claims of “conspiracy theories”, is insulting, and sadly, quite telling about a man whose reputation as a meticulous researcher precedes him.

This kind of unsupported dogma is uncharacteristic of Ditz, and therefore the subject matter must surely be taken into consideration.  It seems that diligent research is required for every subject at AntiWar, except when it comes to defending Wikileaks. Tragically this is becoming more and more common on dissent sites where Wikileaks and Assange is concerned.

Whatever the reason, AntiWar is off my blog-roll.


31 Responses

  1. If I were Assange, all the truly damaging leaks on Israel would be relaeased last of all; meanwhile I would be delivering soothing sounds in Israel’s direction.

    It may be that Julian is doing exactly this. Or it may be that he is a Zionist tool.

    We cannot know the truth until his hand is finally shown.

    But what I utterly reject is any imputation that the CIA, with its sociopathic and ideological leadership, and absolute lack of intelligent comprehension of the issues salient today, could conceivably generate the Wikileaks progression of events. They are simply too ignorant and stupid.

  2. Yeah. I saw that, like instantly. Don’t need no binoculars to see the truth. My typing is limited by (executive )) non-speech motor dispraxia. Yet my eyes see the reality.

    Thanks for doing what I cannot!

  3. I crossed “Anti-War” off my list when they conspicuously ignored the Dennis Kucinich G. W. Bush impeachment move. I still have some faith in Dennis — he at least helped get the “government” involved in “health care.” Sort of.

  4. good move, scott. as i see it, 9/11 is the litmus test to apply to determine who your political friends and enemies are (actually, from either side of the 9/11 truth spectrum). assange and now antiwar are both anti-9/11 truth, which puts them on the side of mass murderers/perpetual war mongers/police staters, etc. very easy to see that with those two.

    tougher to apply the 9/11 litmus with chomsky and alex jones. i’ve read on this site what you have to say about them, which i would characterize as cutting chomsky some slack but not jones. you make a strong case for each (and i hope you turn out to be right about chomsky), but after applying the 9/11 litmus test, i still come down the other way on these two: jones (despite his crazed antics and fear mongering, both of which are troublesome) constantly speaks out as a 9/11 truth activist; while chomsky, in his most notable direct statement re 9/11, called 9/11 truth “irrelelevant.”

  5. What I utterly reject is the wholly disingenuous claim by Tony Ryan, that the CIA is inept or stupid.

    The CIA has a long well known history of manipulation on a micro and macro level. C’mon, Tony.

    Why wait to the very last to release info on Israel, Tonyboy? That talking point sure seems popular over the past few days with many variations on the ‘be patient shut up and sit down’ meme showing up wherever the Assange evangelicals ply their craft. The troll squad used the ‘be patient and do nothing’ talking point on 911 truth and impeach Bush issues when it suited them too.
    I was going to take the day off today Tony, but you got me motivated, thanks!

    Sadly Anti-war is crap. I have wasted a lot of time believing or trusting various faux lefty sites. It hurts to slowly lose faith in them, but such is the burden of truth seeking.
    But the babies and bathwater idea has some applicability here. I still visit the fake left sites just to see how the globalists/fascists who rule us are herding the liberal cattle on any given day or topic. I see much value in that, especially when you compare and contrast half a dozen of them and see how they all sing the same song. On Assange, they sound like the choir in Salt Lake City.

    To this I would add Alternet, and this link for consideration.

    and this gem

    I remember as Bush3 was taking over in 2008 how a new narrative against 911 truth was emerging. That of the right wing nut with his bible and his gun as the new prototype of a truther. It was quite bad at rawstory, no surprise if you know much about Alexandrovna.
    Alternet is not on our side………….but with all the dubious lefty gatekeeper sites, they MUST do some good in order to establish ‘credibility’ with truth seeking liberals. So much of what they say is valid and worthwhile.
    Maybe Willy could adjust his 1A News Sources into a 1A and a 1D for dodgy or dubious. I still visit those sites, with my salt shaker. No salt needed here, just a bit of courage and an open mind.

  6. re: “Maybe Willy could adjust his 1A News Sources into a 1A and a 1D for dodgy or dubious.”

    for a newcomer to the site like me, categorization along these and/or other lines would be welcome. maybe for each category there could be a hover-over with assessments like, “the sites listed below are recommended for [abc] but not necessarily recommended if [xyz].”

    such categorization would have helped me this morning. i read the article in the news section above by scott critical of assange (excellent, in my view), but then from there linked to “orwell’s dreams” and found an article by eric walberg a “featured writer” from counterpunch calling assange a hero. meanwhile, there is no listing for counterpunch as a news source but there is a listing for counterpunch under “activism.” i’m not sure what to make of all this but my guess would be that maybe the site features could use a little tweaking and/or updating.

  7. That’s a good idea Dennis, I will start work on that.

    AS far as counterpunch is concerned, I value their work, but I check that site much less often than I used to check AntiWar mainly because AntiWar covered more current news than counterpunch, which is more like an “Op Ed’ type site.

    And if I am not mistaken, Counterpunch is a little more 9/11 Truth friendly. I did not see the aricle you mentioned. I need to look at that. But the multiple misleading headlines on AntiWar recently combined with the “conspiracy theories” statement, was just the last straw for me.

    I like Raimondo. He’s one of the few out there who is pretty honest about 9/11, so I will keep track of what he writes and occasionally post his work. Though I don’t like the neoliberal nature of the Libertarian Party (big “L”), I think Justin is legit, and a good writer.

  8. dennis:
    “good move, scott. as i see it, 9/11 is the litmus test to apply to determine who your political friends and enemies are”

    I’m sorry, but that is just too extreme. To dismiss anyone and everyone who doesn’t believe in the “9-11 Truth” movement, regardless of how much you may agree with them on most everything else, is being a single-issue fanatic.

  9. Calling someone a ‘fanatic’ because they have strong feelings about a murder of 3000 people seems a bit fanatical to me.
    The crime so obviously leads to top American political figures and also involves top foreign political leaders.
    The idea that those same people now have power, the support of corrupt media and have used 911 to kill millions more in their war on terror, is one that should generate outrage. Anyone who has not bothered to do a bit of research on 911 is a flawed human being. To dismiss the deaths of those people and millions more is disgraceful. Dar, you are in no position to judge anyone. Dennis is has a good litmus test, on moral and practical terms.

  10. To mike,

    If you wish for me to write why I don’t buy into the 9-11 “Turth” movement, amd why I find it to be yet another way for people to wash their hadns of their own responsibilities for what the govt. does, then I will.

    But that is not the issue, the issue is demanding someone agree with you on one issue, or else they can’t be trusted.

    How is that any difference than a feminist who demands a pro-abortion stand as the sole important issue in the world?, or a Born-Again Christian who insists either someone is a believer in Jesus’ Divinity, or they can be dismissed whole-sale?

  11. thanks, mike.

    dar, 9/11 truth IS that important to me, for the reasons mike very well stated. if that makes me a fanatic in your eyes, so be it. let’s just say we disagree on 9/11 truth and leave it at that.

  12. Just for clarity, I don’t think (I could be wrong? Me? never) what Dar is saying is that anyone who questions the official story of 9/11 is a “fanatic” but rather, using the issue to either accept or dismiss the relative value of other dissidents borders on the “fanatical”

    To that end I partially agree.

    We as Truth Advocates have a lot we can learn about the politics of 9/11 from people like Chomsky, Klein, Hedges, and others who do good work exposing the globalist climate that set 9/11 in motion and profited from it.

    9/11 did not happen in a vacuum. We have to understand it’s place in the larger plan, that we all know is taking place right now.

    And so I don’t believe we do ourselves any real service by ignoring the otherwise enlightening work of researchers like those I mentioned before.

    However, I also think that people like Dar would be well served if they maintain the ability to keep an open mind when talking with Truth Advocates. Just like we must keep an open mind while talking to other activists who don’t happen to share our views on 9/11.

    I think we are better served by coming together rather than deliberately separating ourselves from potential allies. we have the same end goals and a great deal to learn from each other.

  13. As far as the whole “litmus test’ idea goes… I think what is more important is the way in which the subject is handled. for example…

    David Swanson makes his living as an “activist” however, the man has been belligerent and insulting and I personally have caught him lying several times with regard to the Truth movement.

    I think this kind of behavior would serve as a better litmus test than say whether or not they agree with us on the subject of 9/11 being yet another in a long line of false flag events.

  14. Sure Dar, enlighten us with your reasons that you think the 911 truth movement is bunk.

    As for you attempting to label people who care about it as single issue fanatics comparable to anti abortion nuts or Jesus freaks, nice one, very effective.
    Abortion has two sides, one for social justice and benefit to the masses, and one very negative one for the mother and fetus. Jesus is a theoretical concept, impossible to prove or disprove. They are extremely poor examples to compare.
    911 is a crime, 911 has a body of physical evidence, 911 had a commission that was a joke according to its own members. 911 has thousands of qualified engineers, architects and military who openly challenge its many impossibilities.

    willy. Up above I made it clear that I also value sites that mix lies in with their truth, babies and bathwater. But just because I see some value in their truth, does not mean that I approve of their lies. Their mix of truth and lies is the context that allows us to attempt to see more.
    I believe Naomi Klein is a great woman, one to be admired for her work in reaching middle of the road people. Her avoidance of 911 truth does not bother me because she has not condemned 911 truth and has in her own discrete way lent support to it.
    Chomsky is one who used truth telling on other issues to establish ‘credibility’ then he supports the big lie of the fascists. Like Amy Goodman, he is an enemy of the truth and a tool of the establishment. We are in opinion territory here, and we could all argue all day about what pundits are acceptable to us or not………but that would be all of us of on a tangent, chasing wild geese and red herrings, wouldn’t it? Nice work Dar!

    1.Being open to 911 truth is a valid litmus test.
    2. Wanting a new honest, investigation into 911 truth is a valid litmus test.
    3. Believing in every 911 truth theory or idea without thinking, is stupid and a waste of time, and not a valid litmus test.

    Dar seems opposed to the first two, if so fcuk him. If not, an apology from me will follow.

    PS Swanson is a douchebag of the highest order.

  15. “PS Swanson is a douchebag of the highest order.”

    see that? we have reached another consensus.

  16. scott, mike,
    these suggestions on how to vary/apply a 9/11 litmus test are all well taken. so thank you for that.

    you are obvioulsy much better-read than i. i read/write for a living and generally have to be drawn into reading something outside work (tax and pension law) before i make an extracurricular reading effort. i have been drawn to david ray griffin’s books, even the pre-9/11 one on “parapsychlogy, philosophy, and spirituality,” which i am now reading because i love his 9/11 work. this is one positive application of my own 9/11 litmus test.

    i’ve never read chomsky but used to listen to him with interest and respect on “democracy now” with amy goodman (whom i stopped surporting since i don’t think she does enough re 9/11 truth–my guess is that she’s been ordered not to). after i discovered 9/11 truth (sept 2008) i also found chomsky’s remarks that 9/11 truth and the jfk assassination (the latter of which i was alleged to have “majored” in, in college) are “irrelevant.” those remarks are dealbreakers for me. thus, i have no real interest in learning what he has to say on any other subject. if he changes his 9/11 truth position openly and aggressively (vs messages in between the lines) then i will change mine. till then, i don’t care how he thinks we got here, i just want to get the f**k out. a truly independent investigation into 9/11 would have the potential to pave the way, in my view. if chomsky would support such and investigation openly and aggressively, think how much impact that would have.

    you mention hedges and i’d frankly never heard of him before coming to your site. but i found the article you posted from him recently totally depressing and disempowering. to me, articles that generate that kind of depression and disempowerment actually serve the powers that be, and i can’t believe that aspect is lost on hedges. so what does that make him? not someone i’d like to read, to be sure. however, on 9/11blogger today someone posted that hedges was going to give the poster an interview re 9/11 truth, and the poster was looking for help in that regard (i think you’d fit in great there with that one, so you might want to check it out). if the hedges interview ever happens and is published, and i like what hedges says about 9/11, my own litmus test would have me investigate his other writings. till then, i’m not so inclined.

  17. Mike:
    “Chomsky is one who used truth telling on other issues to establish ‘credibility’ then he supports the big lie of the fascists. Like Amy Goodman, he is an enemy of the truth and a tool of the establishment.”

    See, you don’t see how such an attitude is in anyway fanatic? These two do more work in exposing crimes of the elites and empire, yet because they disagree on that one issue, then they are enemies “of truth” and tools “of the establishment”.

  18. Supposing the 9-11 turth movement is right, how is 9-11 in anyway a bigger crime by the US govt. than Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan or Korea?

    Yet someone like Prof. Chomsky exposes the immorality of these wars.

    Supposing someone murdered three people, and along the way home beat a fourth into unconsciousness. Most people believe he’s innocent of all four crimes. Someone like Prof.Chomsky believes he committed the three murders but is skeptical of the beating. Is it fair to ignore the three murders and proclaim that believing in the guilt of beating the fourth victim is the be-all and end-all of one’s moral compass and honesty?

    As for why I don’t buy the 9-11 Truth movement, simple, aside from the scientific explanations published (and of which I’m no expert anyhow), there is no reason for the govt. to carry out such an attack anyway. Increasing govt.power and the Police State? No need, the govt. has ben doing this for decadees anyway. Going to war against a nation that didn’t attack us? No need, the US has been doing that for decades. Creating a climate of fear and subservience in the public? No need,the US has been doing that successfully for decades with Communism and China and the like.

    Want additional reasons? Why risk such a big operation when even a minor attack would have done the same job? Why is it that the same “evil genius” Bush govt.that can carry out 9-11 can’t even do something as crazy-simple as planting WMD’s in Iraq or do a better job forging Iraq-Al Qaeda link documents? Why not carry uot another, much smaller, attack in the US to further strengthen itself, especially during the 04 and 08 elections?

    I believe there were elements in the govt, who knew of an impending big attack (though maybe not its details) and chose to ignore it, but otherwise nothing more.

    The people in Washington have proven themselves amoral and immoral imperialists for decades now without the public complaining, they’ve no need for any false flag operation.

  19. dennis;

    if you could, try reading Chomsky’s Failed States. In it he argues that the U.S. has become a failed state. He talks in great detail about false flag actions and state sponsored terrorism. In fact, I am not the only person who thinks Chomsky is definitely hinting that 9/11 was possibly an inside job. But the information in that book is essential, in my opinion, to what we are doing here.

    In my opinion. take it for what it is worth.


    That’s a little harder.

    I know what you mean about his depressing negativism. A case can be made that it is something done to demoralize developing resistance groups.

    You have to understand Hedges’ background though. The man has been a war correspondent for decades. Every little ugly skirmish and CIA black op, this guy has been there. Every time a budding democracy has been overthrown by the globalists and a dictator has been put into place, he has been there.

    So he knows what is around the corner for us. In fact I think he has a much better understanding of it than many Truth advocates.

    When a democracy is shut down and a full fledged authoritarian dictatorship emerges, the first thing that happens is the rounding up of dissenters. Disappearing leftists is like a national pass-time. In India, even the population got into the act, running around killing Muslims, pulling them out of their homes and killing them in the street during the night.

    Having seen this kind of thing happen first hand, over and over again, and seeing the developments heading in that direction in this country, Hedges certainly cannot bring himself to sugar-coat the grim reality we will soon be facing.

    Obama has no more 9/11 First Responders’ bills to rescue his dwindling popularity polls.

    Soon enough Obama will shift from his pretend Kennedy impersonation to show his more accurate face, that of the American Boris Yeltsin.

    This terrifies Hedges. And it should. He has every right. He has seen the true face of the globalization process.

    I remember one talk he gave to some young people. They had put together a rally and asked Hedges to speak (quite astute a choice for high school kids, if you ask me)

    They were all very motivated and politically active and unfortunately quite naive.

    One kid got up and he talked about his idea of making a new media that will undercut the power of the MSM. It’s a good idea, but one that doesn’t really reflect an understanding of the power they are up against.

    This is what Hedges tried to explain to them. He talked about the many times he as a reporter walked down dirt roads into ambushes. The most important thing he said, was understanding the power that is leveled against us, even when that power is seemingly unstoppable.

    Knowing what is at the end of that dirt road is always better than walking into an ambush.

    Another thing he talks about is the distinct possibility that what we are doing is setting the foundation for a revolution we may never live to see. This too is a distinct possibility and one that, when considered, provides a different, less self-serving motivation all to itself.

    I tend to think that we will see that revolution in our time but only after we also see the mass arrests of dissidents on the left and the right. Thus is the overall point of Glenn Beck, preparing the general public to accept mass, unconstitutional arrests. That project is already well underway.

    Yes, he is depressing but I think its probably for the right reasons, or at least I hope it is. He has been there before and he knows what is coming. That’s why I put his work up here. Hell, I’m depressing as shit as well. Only I still have hope that we can and will see something happen to change all of this.

  20. “Supposing the 9-11 turth movement is right, how is 9-11 in anyway a bigger crime by the US govt. than Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan or Korea?”

    I could be wrong, but I know at least I don’t suggest that 9/11 is a “bigger crime” by the U.S. government than any of the crimes that you mentioned.

    But just like those conflicts you mentioned, we have to get to the Truth of 9/11 if we hope to understand the real nature of the Global War on Terror (what I call the “Global Free Market Wars”)

    If we can expose the truth of 9/11, then Afghanistan, Iraq, the war on terror… its over. The ongoing pretext of the “Islamofascist” is done with… the “long war” the “hundred year war” is done with…

    in short what I am saying is, no, 9/11 was not a bigger crime, but it is the pretext for an ONGOING crime. More people are going to die, more people are going to be tortured, more people are going to be dislocated, as a result of NOT exposing the truth of 9/11.

    As far as I can tell, the crimes of Vietnam have finished their death toll.

    While 9/11 continues to rack up the collateral damage. That is why it is important to address it. Just as important as the crimes that you mentioned.

  21. scott,
    thanks for the reply and your take on chomsky and hedges. food for thought. as per your recommendation, i will put “failed states” on the “to be read” list.

  22. Dar is a fcuking troll. Ignoring direct questions and responding to made up shit, because the real stuff is too problematic for him.

    Nobody said 911 was a bigger crime. But Dar got everyone talking about it, classic response to a non question.

    I outlined three reactions to 911 truth expanding on the litmus test idea from Dennis.

    1.Being open to 911 truth is a valid litmus test.
    2. Wanting a new honest, investigation into 911 truth is a valid litmus test.
    3. Believing in every 911 truth theory or idea without thinking, is stupid and a waste of time, and not a valid litmus test.

    Dar seems opposed to the first two, if so fcuk him. If not, an apology from me will follow.
    So he ignores the simple opportunity to show his views on 911, makes shit up and gets his 50 cents.

  23. Dennis:

    You mentioned Amy Goodman before. She’s a fine example.

    On today’s show she explained how all of this global cooling is caused by global warming.

    “We are getting tremendous wall-to-wall, 24-hour-a-day coverage of weather. In fact, we got an email from a friend. The subject said, “News?” with a question mark. And then it said, questioning why we were covering weather, saying, “What’s next? Traffic and sports?” But the weather is news, if the newscasters on television took it on by talking about the issue of global warming—you know, what people can do about this.” Amy Goodman

    Now, Goodman was there last year when the outline for the Copenhagan accord was released and the G77 and civil society members stormed out of the meeting because they could clearly see that the entire global warming scam was being used by the elite countries to lock-up the industrialization futures of every other nation, and effectively hand over billions in new tax revenue to the IMF and World Bank.

    She has no excuse for what she is doing. Yes, pollution must be stopped and actually a cap and tax system would be good if they paid that money into their local economies.

    But what she is constantly advocating is cap and trade along with the new derivatives type market and of course, lots of taxes going straight to the IMF and World Bank so they can use it to enslave even more nations in endless debt cycles.

    She, in my opinion, is much worse than Chomsky or Hedges.

  24. Scott,

    Circa 2006-2007, I was a fan of Amy’s and actually did one of those “donate $1,000 and meet Amy for dinner” deals. In those days, my main political concern was electronic voting with no paper trail and how it meant the demise of democracy, or what was left of it. I tried to get that point across over dinner but Amy was totally disinterested and I could not fathom why. She had Greg Palast on her show after all and he had discussed this…all I was asking for was more of the same.

    Later (Sept 2008) came 9/11 Truth for me and in my research I found clips of Amy running for her life when Building 7 came down (, and later saying that she supported a new investigation into 9/11 ( Also, Amy did host a show featuring loose change vs popular mechanics ( so she seemed mildly open to 9/11 Truth. But in my book, like with her stance on rigged voting, Amy was not doing nearly enough, so I stopped supporting Democracy Now.

    Thanks for letting me know about Amy’s global warming comments. Synchronistically, last night I re-watched Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” with my environmentally-minded girlfriend. Pre-global warming, I always kinda liked Gore (cousin of Vidal) and to this day believe that if Al had won in 2000, there would have been no 9/11. But…is he right about global warming? I confess that when his movie first came out I was persuaded. Later I read an article by Freeman Dyson (in the NY Times, no less, a paper I detest) that got me thinking the other way (see By then, I had also come across Alex Jones, whose message was sullied by his antics and rants. Admittedly, I have not done enough research on global warming. To wit, re: “Goodman was there last year when the outline for the Copenhagan accord was released and the G77 and civil society members stormed out of the meeting because they could clearly see that the entire global warming scam was being used by the elite countries to lock-up the industrialization futures of every other nation, and effectively hand over billions in new tax revenue to the IMF and World Bank.” I was not aware of any of this. Thanks. Any cites/links?

    Being concerned about pollution, I was glad to hear you say, “Yes, pollution must be stopped and actually a cap and tax system would be good if they paid that money into their local economies.” But then…what exactly is “the global warming scam?” That there is no global warming? Or using the fear of gobal warming which does (or does not) exist while advocating “cap and trade along with the new derivatives type market and of course, lots of taxes going straight to the IMF and World Bank so they can use it to enslave even more nations in endless debt cycles?” Any place where the scientific arguments of both sides are fairly presented? Any chart of temperatures across the globe across time? Should it be so hard to prove this one way or the other? Acc to “An Inconvenient Truth,” those scientists opposed to global warming are a fringe minority, which sounds like a kind of 9/11 Truth “dismissal argument” so I tend to distrust the statement and consequently the speaker, Al Gore.

    And…are you and Alex Jones in sync on the global warming scam (however defined)?

    As for who’s worse, Goodman, or Chomsky or Hedges, I don’t know. I just can’t get behind any of them right now. But re: Chomsky—on 9/11blogger today, someone linked from the Hedges article to an article on media coverage of 9/11 by one Denis Rancourt here
    which I thought was good, and which linked me to another of his articles which captured my impression of Chomsky pretty well. Rancourt said, “Among activist readers Chomsky mainly serves to deepen the pathological pacifism of neutralized mainstream movements. This is mainly because almost all First World activists are of the latter variety [4] but Chomsky does not challenge us to step out. Instead, Chomsky feeds the disconnected and ailing trapped intellectual, the lost soul who has been socialized to study as a “first step” rather than to first feel and stand based on primordial impulse. Education as a “first step” constrains us to study and precludes action until an “understanding” is sufficiently complete, in a manner not unlike compulsory and self-imposed schooling as a holding pattern. When one cannot perceive or will not fight one’s own oppression [5] and when the problem is taken to be the intractable entire planet and the systems of exploitation that occupy it, the “first step” is a non-ending self-trapped cycle of intellectual isolation in which the brain is severed from the heart; the heart that is defined by solidarity in battle and in shared risk and shared consequences, and by inter-dependence.” See

    I would welcome your opinion of Rancourt’s take on Chomsky, if and when you get a chance.

    Thanks! I’m getting an education here!

  25. wow…

    Where do I start with that?

    first, just so you know, when you post more than 3 links in a comment, it goes automatically to cue for approval. Its got nothing to do with you, just the amount of links in a comment. Just so you know.

    As far as the link for Amy is concerned. I wrote about it when it happened and I know I can find the link somewhere… however, if you want to Google Democracy NOW!, Copenhagen, and maybe Naomi Klein, all together, I guess you will find the interview she had with Naomi where they were discussing it in Copenhagen. Amy went there just like she went to Cancun.

    As far as global warming is concerned.

    Look, even according to the IPCC’s own numbers the global temps had been dropping since 2001 and according to their spokesman, there has been no significant warming since 1998. Once these numbers started to come out, all of a sudden, the new problem became “climate change”

    Well, to me, that’s a bit like the war on “terror”. Climates change. You can’t have a war on a word and you can’t stop climates from changing.

    Now we got Amy explaining to us how global cooling is caused by global warming. Come on.

    Is the climate shifting? I don’t know. Does the carbon count in the atmosphere follow the temperature shift or is it the other way? Again, I have seen studies claiming both.

    The simplest way to deal with it, I think, and I think Phil Jones may have even said something similar back during Copenhagen, and that is to limit carbon emissions for industries and tax them for those emissions. Pay that money to their local communities, which will help their economies, and since it costs companies to pollute, they will have to create an efficient carbon capture system which will create jobs and reduce pollution. Everyone wins. its not that hard to figure out.

    What do we have proposed? A system which will create carbon credits and the derivative based carbon credits market, that will be used to create yet another bubble and more CDOs and such. The big polluters in the US and British companies will be given their carbon credits for free. The other smaller competing companies all across the world will have to pay for theirs making the cost of production too high to maintain and thus the US and British companies will be able to control competition world-wide. Not only that, but the money generated from all kinds of new carbon footprint taxes will be levied against us and that money will go to the IMF and World Bank so they can use it to force developing nations to take loans and thus control their nations that way.

    plus god knows how much corruption and graft in the mean-time.

    And in the end, many scientists, some of whom are actually participants in the IPCC have come out and clearly stated that the evidence for any climate shift being man-made is certainly not conclusive.

    Now, where are we?

    The global temperatures have been dropping
    The obvious solution is ignored
    The convoluted solution is pushed
    The science isn’t conclusive regarding man’s contribution to the whole thing.

    And after the Copenhagen Accord was leaked, the rest of the world (G77 and civil society) got up and got out. They saw what was happening and got pissed off.

    We have to fix pollution. We have to get back to regulating industry and we have to establish bi-lateral trade agreements that will ensure that everyone is playing on a level playing field. These are major issues in my book.

    Am I concerned that we need to set up another scheme for Wall Street and the Rothchild’s banks to make bundles of cash? No.

    That’s the long answer. The short answer is I don’t about global warming. I don’t know if it’s real or not. I know the temperature is fluctuating. But as far as us causing it, to me, the jury is still out.

  26. also, I seem to remember someone leaking the Bilderberg agenda items earlier this year and if I am not mistaken, didn’t one of their action items deal with “global cooling” and how to make that sync with global warming? If anyone knows what I am remembering, please let me know.

  27. thanks scott. very much appreciated. if you can find the link with what you wrote, that would be great. i’m striking out with google.

    one thing i always come back to is how little we know first hand. so hard to find the truth, but there is something about the pursuit of truth that makes the effort all worthwhile, even if you never quite get there.

  28. mike:”Nobody said 911 was a bigger crime. But Dar got everyone talking about it, classic response to a non question.”

    I didn’t bring up 9-11, dennis, did amd I responded to his “litmus test” comment.

    Also, what idiot wrote this to me?: “Sure Dar, enlighten us with your reasons that you think the 911 truth movement is bunk.” ?

    Hint: mirror.

    I merely commented on the assertion that 9-11 is a litmus test for friends and enemies, and I disagreed.

    I don’t want to be rude, but you’re a dick who can’t respond properly.

  29. I remember a brief time when a number of strong localized environmental movements actually made an impact.
    Preserving specific areas of Amazon rain forest, with honest groups working with indigenous people, spending donations wisely. The efforts to halt logging in BC Canada, Washington and Oregon states. Micro credit in developing nations etc. All highly effective and a nightmare for our globalist rulers.

    So que the hugely complex divisive autocratic global warming machine. Al Gore was the original messiah and he was able to globalize the movement. It has since lost all focus on manageable small environmental projects, and is being enticed to view the entire complex process through the lens of carbon…, caps, profits, credits and money. All of this in complete control of banksters!
    This is akin to throwing virgins into volcanos.
    We all know there are environmental catastrophe’s everywhere. The global warming scam is an attempt by our rulers to take the obvious problem of pollution ruining our planet, and converting it to a cash grab which allows them to pollute even more with impunity. The only thing dirtier than all of that pollution is Dar.

    PS, Glad to hear this site is growing Willy, as it should.

  30. chomsky’s recent/same old attitude re 9/11 is part of an interesting 9/11 blogger thread in which graeme macqueen revealed that he is planning to hold international hearings in ottawa around the 10th anniversary of 9/11, with a “systematic presentation of evidence.” link follows quote.

    Vesa: I’m not sure what kind of tribunal Chomsky has in mind, but we are planning to hold international Hearings in Ottawa around the 10th anniversary of 9/11, with systematic presentation of evidence. Feel free to tell him that, and you might let him know that Kevin Ryan and I (Graeme MacQueen) are both involved in this initiative, which we’ll be formally announcing soon. In the meantime, all my best to you, Jon. I agree that we need to do more of this.”


  31. […] help themselves; they have to expand. The people running this operation know there will be no critical evaluation of their product from the typically skeptical left since many of those journalists, like Glenn Greenwald, Amy […]

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: