In Search of the Last Liberal Intellectual

In the wake of the Sandy Hook School shooting public incredulity with the official version of events led to numerous speculations on what really happened. In short order corporate media marshaled pundits to disparage such alternative interpretations as “conspiracy theories” and the work of deranged and even malevolent Sandy Hook “truthers.”

The now-prevalent phenomenon where only the narratives authorized by law enforcement and government authorities are worthy of serious consideration suggests the unmistakable extent to which public discourse has declined. In such an ideational system journalists and academics are expected to either fall silent or perform the rearguard action of deflecting criticism from the state.

Events such as Aurora or Sandy Hook have profuse informational gaps and a multitude of questions authorities have not begun to adequately address. Regardless of political stripe journalists and academics especially should be instinctively distrustful of such momentous incidents. Unfortunately many put short term interests of preserving reputation and livelihood above the obligatory search for truth.

Today’s project of policing the public sphere for unorthodox thoughts is a form of stealth authoritarianism that combines the weight of academic or journalistic expertise with a phony liberalism (or conservatism) to confirm the often unexamined perspectives of a specific political constituency. Such a technique is most readily employed against the apparently irrational ideas, beliefs and practices of a foreign other. In this regard “conspiracy theorists” and “truthers” typically play the “straw man” role.

For example, a recent piece by Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan exhibits anxiety over major media’s attention toward individuals critical of what authorities have told them to believe about Sandy Hook.[1] Nyhan is fearful that research into the Newtown massacre contradicting the government’s official narrative—what he emphatically terms “conspiracy mongering” and “obscure myths”–may be given a platform by more “prominent advocates” from the political realm. From here the dangerous notions could gain the support of the unenlightened–“credulous believers” and “new adherents who would not otherwise have been exposed to or persuaded by false claims.” Such verboten ideas, Nyhan argues, should instead be allowed to “wither and die.”

The problem with this stance is that it consciously paves the way for the official false claims and myths that powerful political entities and corporate news and entertainment media are capable of forcing upon the public mind and collective memory, be they Osama bin Laden masterminding the 9/11 attacks, babies being thrown from incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals, or North Vietnamese forces firing the first shots in the Vietnam War. Such a position is not unusual from a palace court intellectual; whether it is morally sound and faithful to the liberal tenet of speaking truth to power is a matter for another day.

In reviewing other articles by those using this form of defamatory innuendo toward the Sandy Hook truth community I encountered numerous poorly reasoned arguments and claims that could not withstand serious scrutiny and amounted to a bulwark for the official narrative–indeed, arguments most appealing to those with a dangerously unexamined faith in state power and lacking the inclination to consider alternative perspectives or investigate the event for themselves.

This prompted me to contact several notable “conspiracy theory” decriers and request an interview with each of them. Instead of mere name-calling, I remain sincerely interested in better understanding why such apparently intelligent individuals have come to arrive at their conclusions and become the self-appointed guardians of legitimate public exchange. I thus set about assembling a set of questions on a wide array of “conspiracy”-related issues and phenomena.

I figured I would begin by reaching out in a collegial manner to Professor Nyhan himself. “Sorry, not interested,” he replied, rather tersely. I next contacted Ben Smith and C J Lotz, staff writers at the popular liberal website, who wrote a piece remarkably similar to Dr. Nyhan’s titled, “Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theories Edge Toward the Mainstream.”[2] Smith and Lotz never responded to my emails.

Undeterred, I contacted the operators of the well-known liberal “fact check” website “I’m sorry, I’m afraid we just can’t,” Barbara Mikkelson replied. “I fear this is the downside of having a small operation.”

Next I dropped political writer and ThinkProgress assistant editor Alex Seitz-Wald a line. The youthful Seitz-Wald prides himself as being one of today’s foremost “truth” skeptics. Since early January he has written a series of articles generally disparaging Sandy Hook researchers. “I’m writing one more story on this,” he said, “but really not interested in getting back into this subject or enduring more hate mail.”

I moved on to career anti-conspiracist and former High Times editor John Foster “Chip” Berlet. Calling himself a progressive and champion of liberal democracy, Mr. Berlet wrote profusely on the resurgence of the so-called “new right” throughout the 1990s.[3] “I do not spend time with people promoting crackpot conspiracy theories,” he replied, somewhat peevishly. “It is annoying, counterproductive, and gives me a headache. Nevertheless, I support your First Amendment right to waste bandwidth and electricity.”

Just when I was about to give up hope Jonathan Kay, editor at Canada’s National Post and author of Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America’s Conspiracist Underground [4] responded favorably to my interview request. “Sure,” he said, much to my delight. Yet when I provided Kay with the questions he balked. “Just about all the answers to these questions are in my book,” he replied. I countered that very few of the questions were actually addressed in the book. “I get the sense that my perspective wouldn’t really be that meaningful to you. I’m going to pass on this.”

In the end while skilled at defending the varied machinations of our out-of-control police state by helping to confirm their immediate audiences’ prejudices, none of the foremost conspiracy cynics and debunkers opted to have a dialogue–one where they would likely be compelled to interrogate their own claims and assumptions.

Could it be that what these commentators desire in lieu of dialogue is a one-way transmission of their ideas devoid of critique or interpretation–one where the pursuit of “truth” itself is caricatured as a fool’s errand? If liberalism is based in part on a free and open exchange perhaps some of the foremost figures and media outlets touting themselves as progressive and liberal, and purporting to preserve and defend rational discourse, really aren’t so open-minded after all.

The following are the questions I was hoping my would-be interlocutors would address.

  • The main thrust of John Milton’s Areopagetica is that in a fair exchange an argument based on the truth will triumph over lies and deception. Do you think that the major media’s use of terms such as “truther” or “conspiracy theorist” to designate individuals or groups with ideas and theories that differ from government and/or corporate entities is a productive part of the journey toward truth and enlightenment Milton envisioned?
  • To what degree do you think citizens and the press should hold government officials accountable for momentous events such as the terror attacks of September 11, 2001?
  • What characterizes a conspiracy theory? How can we distinguish between a conspiracy theory and a valid assessment of a specific phenomenon, issue, or event?
  • US political leaders uniformly maintain that Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network were the sole agents behind the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 Commission’s report attributed this set of events to “a lack of imagination” in terms of government agencies’ preparation. In your view, what are the most compelling pieces of evidence to support this official explanation of the 9/11 events?
  • Historian Richard Hofstadter argues in his well-known essay, “The Paranoid Style of American Politics,” that regardless of how much evidence the conspiratorially-minded gather and present on a topic or phenomenon they are not worthy of a hearing as their views may endanger rational political discourse and consensus. Does such a position potentially jeopardize effective and honest journalistic practice?
  • In your estimation, is the tendency to entertain or proffer conspiracy theories a sign of a potential psychiatric condition? Along these lines, are at least some conspiracy theorists inherently dangerous?
  • In 1977 Carl Bernstein reported that through “Operation Mockingbird” and related activities many major news organizations were infiltrated by CIA operatives or consciously aided the CIA in intelligence gathering activities and “planting” stories in the press. CIA document 1035-960 suggests how the agency went about thwarting criticism of the Warren Commission’s examination of President Kennedy’s assassination by utilizing intelligence assets in news outlets to bolster the Warren Commission’s legitimacy and labeling critics “conspiracy theorists.” In your estimation, is the intelligence community’s penetration of the press an ongoing phenomenon? Is it more widespread today or has it subsided to any significant degree?
  • Political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith cites The Declaration of Independence as a conspiratorial document and asserts that the ideology of America’s founders was in many ways motivated by paranoia toward British rule. In fact, the notion of conspiracy has been a consistent theme in American politics. With this in mind, what is it about modern forms of governance that render such impulses and worldviews irrational, obsolete, and perhaps even dangerous?
  • The bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City brought into public consciousness the notion of “homegrown terrorism.” At the same time the event provided the pretext for laws compromising Americans’ civil liberties and paved the way for the PATRIOT Act that was enacted in the wake of 9/11. Is it reasonable for the public to conclude that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were the sole or principal agents in the bombing? Have you examined the Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee’s 2001 report on the incident? If so, would you consider its findings to be sound and cause for a new judicial interrogation of the event?
  • The official theory of what transpired at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012 involves 20-year-old Adam Lanza going on a murderous rampage that resulted in the deaths of 20 children and 7 adults. Major media outlets appear to have unquestioningly gone forward with this scenario. In your estimation, have law enforcement and medical authorities produced evidence sufficient to support this theory of events?
  • There are a variety of public figures and websites that deem themselves as “alternative” sources of political news and analysis, such as Alex Jones and, and Dr. Webster Tarpley of Why do you believe such individuals are frequently held up as promoters of conspiracy theories? In your view, what is it that makes these commentators and sources of analysis less reliable than, say, CNN’s Piers Morgan, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, or the editorial and op-ed pages of a regional or national newspaper?
  • Philanthropic foundations contribute large sums to a wide array of non-governmental organizations and media outlets in the United States. What role, if any, do you believe such entities play in shaping public discourse and opinion around controversial issues and events?


[1] Brendan Nyhan, “Boosting the Sandy Hook Truther Myth,” Columbia Journalism Review, January 22, 2013. Dr. Nyhan speaks dismissively of this author yet it is difficult to find a conventional article addressing independent Sandy Hook analysis that does not. I chose this piece to aid in analyzing its argument and a specific sociocultural tendency rather than its author. CJR seeks “to encourage excellence in journalism in the service of a free society” and its “major funders” include George Soros’ Open Society Foundations and the Rockefeller Family Fund.

[2] Ben Smith and C J Lotz, “Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theories Edge Toward the Mainstream,”, January 22, 2013.

[3] For example, see the barely concealed political tracts in Chip Berlet (editor), Eyes Right! Challenging the Right Wing Backlash, Boston and Somerville MA: Political Research Associates and South End Press, 1995, and the quasi-academic Too Close for Comfort: Right Wing Populism in America, New York: Guilford Press, 2000.

[4] Jonathan Kay, Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America’s Conspiracist Underground, New York: Harper Collins, 2011.

-James F. Tracy

Republished at on March 28, 2013.

69 thoughts on “In Search of the Last Liberal Intellectual”

  1. PSYOPS uses “paranoia” as a offensive weapon in the “arsenal of democracy.” (against u.s.a. citizens) This transmission method assures the truth is surrounded by a “body of lies.”

    1. Here’s a tip: Cut and paste the text into a text editor like Word or Pages, or even into your mail program. Do a “select all” and change the color to anything you like.

  2. Arrogance, blatantly displayed by those whom you wished to interview, is the word that comes to mind as I read this post. We are totally lost as a collective body of souls. Here is a link that I thought your readers might enjoy as it helps to illuminate what ails so many people who take themselves, and their “lofty” positions, too seriously:

    I also would like to bring to your attention the character assassination of James Hansen,former head of NASA’s Goddard Institute, if you are not already aware of his situation. His marginalization and defaming by the media brings into clearer focus the extent of conspiracy perpetrated by the media in collusion with the governments of the world. Government is just another word for ‘Control of Information’ and always has been. As difficult as it is for most people to understand religion was the first form of control and all governments find their roots in religion.

    You continue to do the world a great service with your voice of reason.

    1. Thanks. James Hansen’s observations probably need to be considered within the context of other qualified, non-IPCC affiliated climate scientists.

      1. James, if I did not have personal information that lends credence to what Hansen alludes to I would have never considered his case.
        The situation is as dire as he states. Please take a look at Sam Carana’s blog if you would like a clearer picture of that which humanity, as a whole, faces.

        That the controlled media has gone on an attack, of one of it’s own “kind”, should be a clear indication that James Hansen is saying something that the Asymmetrical Power Structure does not want the public to know. We are suffering under information control which leads to abject ignorance and blind obedience, locking into place a never ending loop of arrogance and insulation from information not “approved” by our social institutions. Perhaps this is why ‘Sandy Hook’ is such a glaring ‘Canary in the Coalmine’…it defies even the most common of senses to be induced through hypnotic suggestion.

        As we gather up all the seemingly disparate pieces of this web of lies and global deceit a clearer picture emerges unlike any we could have conjured in our wildest imaginations….but, it would serve us well to connect those proverbial “dots”.

        Good luck to all in this endeavor.

  3. What an excruciatingly rational and lucid post, Prof. Tracy.

    A number of us were recently ‘dismissed’ (ie., banned) at the progressive site, Op-Ed News, for trying to establish and maintain some sort of comprehensive and eclectic (and therefore, correct) readership viewpoint, one which would include the valid, open and argumentative discussion of questionable major news events, like the Sandy Hook massacre and the Christopher Dorner rampage. Events that point, very clearly, it would seem, to wholesale fraud and manipulation.

    I myself participated at OEN for several years as a commenter and minor news contributor trying to open things up there and create a more inquiry-friendly, uncensored public information and debate environment at that site. Alas, I was unsuccessful.

    For some reason(?), ‘management’ always interferes and prohibits frank and honest citizen discussion and moves to still and/or modify huge portions of any debate where psyops and hidden ulterior motives by major organized yet highly clandestine operatives seem likely to be present.

    I have witnessed and experienced this interference and censorship at virtually all the larger news and public opinion outlets on the web that I have visited, whatever name or general description they give to themselves. It (the amount of control, regulation and restriction) is extraordinary.

    I believe we are living in a world of very criminal motive and intent, of planned chaos and cover-up, a world of highly organized and possibly unstoppable, crime.

    How sad and tragic that is.

    Ned Lud

    1. Ned, I had the same experience at opednews back during the 2008 election campaign. I favored Clinton and the Democrat Party, of course, had already embraced Obama. We who opposed Barack had the last laugh (if you can ironically laugh through copious tears); editor-in-chief, Rob Kall was wailing and bemoaning betrayal–imagine–of the faithful by the ‘chosen one.’

      The unfortunate state of affairs lies in the hard fact that once you have chosen a side, the imperative to blind loyalty trumps being true to oneself. Of course, another– more modern — application might be stated in psychological terms: cognitive dissonance. Shakespeare was not schooled in modern headshrinking, but he had instinctive feel for human motives, good or evil. The inability to step outside your comfort zone, realize glaring errors when disconnects between perception and reality blur thinking.

      If you can cross that barrier and survive, you are half-way to sanity. All we aware people can do is nudge the myopic toward the light–cautiously, or we will lose momentum. Peace….

    1. Strange and unsettling stuff here…
      But things like this might be closer to illustrating what a total Mind&^*% this whole Sandy Hook mess seems to be than any official version, oddly enough.

  4. Game. Set. Match., Mr. Tracy.
    It’s always struck me as odd that “conspiracy theory” is used as a pejorative considering how many laws and convictions there are each year are for “conspiracy charges”. Here’s one small example repeated almost everyday.
    It would seem that State and Federal DA’s are the real “conspiracy theorists”. The Libor scandal and HSBC’s various documented malfeasance are both huge conspiracies and yet they are barely mentioned in the Mass Media outside of Matt Taibbi’s great work. However, Taibbi and much of the left leaning progressive media have been largely dismissive of any “truth” movement subjects. It’s a subject that formed a schism in the longstanding Project Censored with their notion of these “truth” ideas being “threshold concepts”, core concepts that once understood, transform the perception of a given subject. Anyways, great blog as usual. Funny, that none of these people to whom you have written, want to throw their hats into the ring of honest dialectic. I guess it’s easier to marginalize and then ignore competing arguments. Your bit about “palace court intellectuals” was pure gold, Mark Twain couldn’t have said it better. I can’t wait to try to answer your questions for myself. Thanks.

  5. Awesome effort, Professor Tracy. The propagandists who attack the truthers are intellectually fraudulent, and that’s why they avoid debate. They prefer a megaphone and a soapbox, and never engage truthers in a rational discussion of the facts. Berlet’s snippy response provides a glimpse into the mindset of these court jesters and pseudo-intellectuals.

    By way of example, watch how Webster Tarpley decimates Jonathan Kay on the topic of 9/11 in this famous debate on BookTV. Despite the obvious efforts of David Frum to stack the debate in favor of Kay, Webster Tarpley absolutely decimates him on the facts (especially the 46 Drills presentation, where Frum tries desperately to cut him off due to “time restraints”).

    This is the perfect example of how the conspiracy theorists are in control of the facts and the pseudointellectuals who are rewarded for propagating the “official narrative” are unwilling — and, yes, unable — to debate the truthers.

  6. “Could it be that what these commentators desire in lieu of dialogue is a one-way transmission of their ideas devoid of critique or interpretation….”

    Isn’t this precisely what our POTUS did the moment he got on TV about Sandy Hook? He said it was ‘time we have that conversation’ and then formed a kangaroo committee to force feed traitorous, anti-Constitutional gun control laws – with no evidence presented, no results of any genuine ‘investigation’, and Zero opportunity for any ‘discussion’ – right down the throats of Americans. And it was done partly with railroaded pre-written legislation and partly with “Executive Action”.

    (I say pre-written because it was ready too quickly. Like the Patriot Act which in some cases changes a single word in other laws – e.g. Consumer Protection – in ways that change meaning and make spying and violations of due process into ‘law’. Such a detailed act of that length could never have been written in the few weeks it took to pass it. Plus the fact that the altered version presented and voted on in about an hour late one night wasn’t the version distributed for review, indicates to me that this was a tactical move years in the planning – as I believe Sandy Hook was too.

    What are the odds that so many families had moved there in the 5 years prior, and that so many of those ‘imported’ families would lose children? Think of any other small town in the US. It just seems terribly odd to me.)

  7. I can’t say I’m surprised at the cowardly, intellectual dishonesty displayed above. Thank you professor Tracy for showing us their true colors.

  8. Setting aside those who are on the payroll–cash or perqs–of those who are trying to deflect true examination, I find it amazing that the sheer DISCUSSION of facts, to be confirmed or refuted, is terrifying to so many. I understand cognitive dissonance and the human tendency to seek confirmation of what we want to believe…we all do that to some extent. But the level of vitriol against and character assassination of those who are obviously not just stirring the pot due to psychosis is astounding.

    It is as if, in America today, you have to willing to be immediately assigned the role of eccentric at best or lunatic at worst by even RAISING questions. Whatever happened to scientific inquiry? Did we somehow take a wrong turn and collectively wind up in monastery before the Enlightenment?

    I love the give and take of open discussion and relish finding out the truth wherever that takes us so that, as ostensibly rational creatures, we can make intelligent decisions about our course. But today, the cult of the omniscient State–and it is a cult in every meaningful sense of the term–is so pervasive that it is becoming nearly impossible to cut through the noise in any near-main stream journalism.

    The fact that there is proof stacked in drifts about us of the duplicity, corruption and bad intent of these same organs of control and information is the real kicker. Everyone knows these things but still, somehow, the patina of legitimacy sticks to the bones of what used to be democratic institutions. We have to come to an oasis like Dr. Tracy’s home here to breathe some fresh air…but I’m afraid that there is someone, somewhere, trying to figure out how to shut off the oxygen ASAP.

  9. I just finished watching a documentary on the Hindenburg zeppelin crash. A statement made by the commentator really hit home with me. “It was not safe for anyone to speak up once the state had made known its official position”. The state, of course, was Hitler’s Nazi party. They spent all of 18 days “investigating” the explosion and crash, and made the declaration that it was “an act of God” before all the test data was even all gathered. As I dig deeper into much of the misinformation and misdirection being fed us by the MSM, I’m frightened by how much it resembles Nazi Germany of the ’30’s. I’m convinced that the United States is soon to be embroiled in civil war. While I’m not convinced it will be a war in the conventional sense, I do believe that those who really do desire to be free from tyranny will have to fight for that right. I mean really. A 20 year old bean pole kid carried that much artillery into a school? By himself? I’m a pretty good sized man, and I know I couldn’t carry that many guns and that much ammo into a school, and successfully use them.

  10. These people can’t have a rational, civil debate because in the course of a rational, civil debate all the information would come out that they’re trying to sweep under the rug. It’s disgusting the way people are willing to sell out the truth for a comfortable place in society. It all comes down to conformity, and a look into the social mechanics of high school tells the whole story. People would rather die than possibly be exposed as a black sheep and be shunned by the herd to perish alone outside in the elements. Ironically, by doing this, they poison the very social construction to which they cling.

  11. “From here the dangerous notions could gain the support of the unenlightened–“credulous believers” ”

    Dr Nylan defined himself with that statement.

    How interesting that those who consider themselves “independent thinkers” wouldn’t even engage in a dialogue.

    Either they are paid to tow the line, or just plain lazy. Perhaps both.

  12. It appears that those who can only attack when protected by their keyboards have either been brainwashed to believe authority is always right or they know of the deceit that is happening and if they speak of it they will lose their stature or maybe even their lives. How many environmental activists have died under suspicious circumstances? Glenn Beck presents himself to be a man of high integrity and genuinely wants what is best for this country. Perhaps you can entice an eye to eye debate with him.

  13. Thanks for this great post and all your continued work in this effort!
    On a personal level, I find that the people who consider themselves the most open-minded are generally the ones least able to tolerate or consider ideas that conflict with their own perception of reality.

  14. Jonathan Kay’s book on Truthers is a pretty lame read. My Amazon review, having garnered a few unfriendly comments, is here:

    Part of Kay’s attempt to debunk conspiracy theories involves citing America’s free press as a credible watchdog that exposes high-level shenanigans. ( This is also part of Cass Sunstein’s argument, put forward here: )

    But what constitutes a “free press”? Just because a government doesn’t overtly own or censor the press doesn’t mean that the press is free.

    Free markets can be undermined in various ways, including when monopolies arise. Because monopolies stifle competition, they reduce market diversity and thereby minimize consumer choice. A market comprising a small number of dominant players is only nominally free.

    The same thing applies to the press. When the press comprises a small number of dominant players, as it does today, with six corporations controlling 90 percent of what Americans see, hear and read, then the press is only nominally free.

    So, the argument from “free press” is no good for debunking conspiracy theorizing.

    &, FYI, entertaining C-SPAN debate between Jonathan Kay and Webster Tarpley here:

  15. “It was not safe for anyone to speak up once the state had made known its official position”.

    The above statement encapsulates what Anderson Cooper was ultimately “saying” when he went on his tirade against Professor Tracy’s position that there are many unanswered questions about the Sandy Hook Attack.

    Subsequently, many people are uncomfortable questioning the official narrative for fear of being “shunned” as a looney conspiracy theorist.

    Yet, it has been a few months since Sandy Hook and the groundswell of our population that questions the origins of this attack is growing, not subsiding.

    It will be interesting to see what happens from here as the bonus points they added to Homeland Security legislation come into play… and we see who benefited.

  16. Edward Bernays would be pleased with the present carroting of public opinion.
    Conscientiously we must question the validity of the carot that has has been a mainstream taboo.

    One champion, Doctor Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, spoke openly in his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.
    I quote-

    “How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

    It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

    So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it.”

    Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society
    From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
    To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
    6 October 2010

    Professor Lewis passed away May 26, 2011.

    We as a society have lost the moral compass to navigate due dilligence of honorable integrity in all aspects of human envolvement with our environs.
    The responsibility to question authorship is paramount to truthful dialogue in setting public policy.
    The steadfastness of resolve is commissioned to all whether their position in society.
    This is descrimination at it highest when we are not allowed to question “the official story”.

    I leave you with another quote from H. Wayne Carver, Chief M.E. State of Connecticut

    “I hope… ahh… I hope they and I hope… ahh…
    the people of Newtown… ahh…
    don’t have it crash on their head later.”
    December 15, 2012 press conference

  17. What has become of this world? Truth has such a small voice because there is no money in the truth. There is no control in the truth. How obvious does an “event” need to be to be questioned by the masses? When the media, government, and legal system is under the control of money, the truth seems to not matter.

    I believe it is normal to be angry at first when told that an “event” did not happen the way the media told us it did. Angry and in a state of dis-belief. I know because this is how I felt a few years back when told that 9/11 was a false flag. Now that I have wakened from my indoctrinated slumber, I question everything. I use my powers of free critical thought and I do a lot of independent research. All is not well in the world and I will never go back to sheep.

    Thank you Mr. Tracy for the courage to write your blog. Never waiver from seeking the truth.

  18. There is a simple,yet powerful phrase that describes what those gentlemen who refuse to meet in debate are using…it is called “Contempt prior to Investigation.”.

  19. If you believe that a coup d’état has ever occured in human history, you are, by definition, a conspiracy theorist. What does that say about folks who claim they are not conspiracy theorists?

  20. Seitz-Wald does weak work. As does Snopes. They will sink as more facts come out.

    i woke up a few days ago thinking about the magic bullet, 1963. i didn’t really confront this absurdity at the time. Now, the idea that a bullet can go through two men, and end on the gurney unscratched, is a perfect symbol of Sandy Hook.

  21. The search for an honest anti-conspiracist was pretty funny. You couldn’t find one, James, because the last liberal intellectual lives in England. He is J.S. McClelland who wrote a huge text WESTERN THEORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT. He states that one aspect of the US Constitution was a “conspiracy thesis” and was suppected by theAmerican people at the time. McClelland is actual a political conservative but this is as close as one can get during the decay of the Western tradition, American liberals being, to varying extents, reactionaries.

    I am strongly in favor of the terms ‘truther’ and ‘conspiracy theory’ however stigmatized by the truth pimps. The conceptual language is formulated from the perspective of power and is restricted, fragmented, and conceptually disconnected to help restrict, fragment, and conceptually disconnect the population, to allow the powerful to divide and rule. That is why Orwell spent so much of his dystopia discussing language.

    Consider two forms of political theory: Orwell and, say, Parenti: there is now no accepted term to denote both of them as political spokesman. Truther fills the bill. And Patrick helped to make the term ;conspiracy’ useful. I’m a conspiracy truther and I’m proud.

  22. James, if I may,

    Might I suggest that your search include/add Daniel Pipes? He has written two books on conspiracy theories, generally taking a pejorative stance on them as you should know, but he does not appear to be completely straight-jacketed in the Establishment sense. His primary expertise is in M.E. political affairs and I’ve generally found him here: Daniel Pipes . He writes many articles and runs the Middle East forum, a generally realistic view of M.E. issues and the ramifications of Islamic hegemony.

    I understand your frustration in that my goal is to find something approaching objective reality as I find the official versions of Kennedy’s killing, 9/11, Vincent Foster’s murder, the TWA jet disaster, to name a few, are flush with presentations of reality that are more “Alice in Wonderland” than representing adult understanding of the state of human behaviour, physics, and chemistry that we have today.

    Just a suggestion.


    Doug Schulek-Miller

  23. Dr. Tracy,

    Thank you for advocating truth. Sadly, I believe people of today are far too accustomed to picking and eating the fruit without ever questioning its roots.

    You have so many supporters and it is easy to see that. The media and it’s favored contributors, or shall I say ‘pushers’ because all they’re good for is pushing surface level information, operates by blocking out and discrediting the support.

    It is no surprise either when one takes into account that over 90% of the US media is owned by merely 6 corporations. Anyone employed better write with the status quo if they want to keep their job.

    Those buggers are annoying, with how they call you out and act childishly when you’re maintaining your composure.

    It’s ok though, their souls are worthless and they themselves are out of touch with reality. Seeing it from a truly analytical perspective, as you do, has far more benefits than seeing it from a ‘monkey see monkey do’ liberal perspective. We just have to ignore the monkey noise and focus on the truth and never let it slip from our grasp.

  24. “Unfortunately many [journalists and academics] put short term interests of preserving reputation and livelihood above the obligatory search for truth.” Indeed. So how about approaching Chris Hedges or Noam Chomsky or Glenn Greenwald? I don’t expect any of them would bite, likely for the very reason you stated in that quote above, but it would be interesting to hear their responses (excuses). Too bad Gore Vidal isn’t still around — now there was a man who I expect would have been glad to converse on this subject.

    Keep up the sane and rational work, Dr. Tracy. You have a lot of support out here, from people like me who’ve never posted until now.

    1. Yeah, I don’t think they are worried about their reputations exactly. I think it’s that they are unable to hear something associated with right-wing kooks. They think they’re elevated and just can’t notice what are (let’s admit) often poorly spoken, ungrammatical arguments. Add to that the facts are ever-changing and always being re-aligned and assessed. If you stick with the official story it only changes by perspective. If you get into what actually happened you have to determine, using your own reasoning capacity and giving value to your own sources, what is true. It doesn’t feel official, or authorized, does it? It’s easier to just watch all-seeing fox/cnn/msnbc and take a side or analyze a discourse; and it feels legitimate, doesn’t it? But in this they aren’t able to watch cnn and account for anderson cooper’s nose disappearing (during his “sandy hook coverage”), as if he’s in front of a blue screen.

Comments are closed.