Major 9/11 Truth Activist Found Dead

FletcherClose Associate of David Ray Griffin Discovered with Spouse in Northern California

The bodies of Tod Fletcher and his wife Susan were recovered at Point Reyes National Seashore in Marin County, California, in an apparent joint suicide.

[Image Credit: YouTube]

For many years Fletcher was an intellectual trailblazer in the 9/11 Truth movement. He was also a close collaborator with Professor David Ray Griffin, whose books he edited and who he frequently represented on interview programs.

Fletcher contributed to the website, wanttoknow.info, and the popular 911Blogger.com site, where his modest bio reads:

I never fell for the official explanation of 9/11. I’ve been researching and writing about 9/11 since 9/12, and have expressed my views on on Guns and Butter and other radio shows. My focus now is on proving that the official account cannot be true. A genuine investigation is imperative.

In 2012 Mr. Fletcher vigorously defended Professor Griffin’s position on the Pentagon against John Wyndham’s aggressive criticisms of Griffin, and against Wyndham’s claim that “The entirety of the evidence then shows that a large plane did hit the Pentagon.” Yet Wyndham’s “scientific method” was to rely on eyewitness testimony rather than forensic crime scene evidence.[1]

Fletcher was also a guest on Bonnie Faulkner’s Guns & Butter radio show in early September.[2]

Fletcher’s wife had been suffering from debilitating health conditions for some time. As a post on wanttoknow.info by Fred Burks reads, “Tod’s wife Susan had major struggles with severe chronic fatigue syndrome and numerous hypersensitivities for nearly three decades, to the point that she was bed-ridden much of that time.” Burks continues,

Her pain and suffering was such that she contemplated suicide several times. She even attempted it once about 10 years ago, saved only when Tod found her and rushed her to the emergency room. The two were very close, and Tod spent much of his time caring for her.

Below is the letter I received in the from Tod on September 30th. It was dated Sept. 28, 2014.

Dear Fred,

Susan has reached the point at which she requires release, and as she can’t effect this herself, I must help her, as I promised her long ago I would do.

But helping her will make me a criminal in deed as well as thought, and I don’t expect I’d be fairly or mercifully treated. So I am going to accompany Susan to the world beyond. By the time you read this, we will have made our passage.

I am indeed sorry for the difficulties this will make for you. I never intended to give you little “notice” should I quit, but Susan’s sudden worsening was beyond my control.

I don’t need, I imagine, to say what a great pleasure and privilege it was to work with you all these years. Nor to say, be happy for us, for we are at peace at last.

Our love to you,
Tod and Susan

I was shocked to receive this letter. I made some calls to the authorities a couple hours after receiving it. They would not confirm any information other than to next of kin, but it became very clear in our conversations that the bodies had been found at Point Reyes National Seashore in Marin County, CA, about an hour north of San Francisco. What a sad and tragic ending to the lives of these two caring souls.

Notes

[1] The Pentagon Attack in Context: a Reply to John Wyndham by Tod Fletcher and Timothy Eastman – Nov 2012 in the Journal of 9/11 Studies

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2012NovemberFletcherEastman.pdf

[2] “The Pentagon Attack In Context,” interview with Tod Fletcher on “Guns & Butter” Radio Show by host Bonnie Faulkner on 9/03/14. The 9/11 Consensus Panel; contextual approach to analyzing events at the Pentagon; origins of the hijacker story; telephone calls from the planes; analysis of eyewitness reports; physical debris; photographic evidence; video evidence; black boxes; FBI takes control of the investigation; means, motive and opportunity; Pentagon specific purposes; planes as a diversionary tactic; John Lear. http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/106255 

108 thoughts on “Major 9/11 Truth Activist Found Dead”

  1. Any researcher worth his mettle knows that chronic fatigue syndrome is curable if you go to the right doctor. His 9/11 research wasn’t that controversial and 9/11 blogger has become a site that dumbs down penta-con research because it implicates the establishment to say it was a flyover as they do at pilots for 9/11. So Tod’s suicide is peculiar.

    1. Marzi, I don’t understand “9/11 blogger has become a site that dumbs down penta-con research because it implicates the establishment to say it was a flyover as they do at pilots for 9/11.”

      What is “penta-con”? What do you mean by the pilots saying “it was a flyover”? What does “it” refer to?

        1. Thanks for the link, Sofia. I had not known of the flyover theory. I am persuaded! And I guess I understand the term “penta-con” now, too.

    2. I have CFS and I see one of the best doctor’s in the world: an internist who has and is still treating CFS patients. With regard to research, I have participated as a subject with Stanford, Columbia and Harvard. Science is learning more, but as of now there is no cure. I am not anywhere as bad as Susan was purported to be, but I have seen and heard numerous CFS sufferers take their life, not to mention die of cancer because their immune systems are so broken. Cher, Greg LeMonde and many other high profile figures have it, but will not come out. Cher was just hospitalized again for a virus….most likely Epstein Barr Virus. I would not wish this disease on anyone. There are very few doctors who will take patients because of their lack of knowledge and there has been very little money allocated to CFS. You don’t die of CFS, you die of an opportunist disease because CFS patients immune systems are dysfunctional. It is a fact, that HIV is much easier to treat.

  2. Sad and tragic to others, yes. But to them it was an ultimate act of love and mercy. I’m tearing up with emotions at the commitment, love and courage this act expressed. The “till death do us part” portion of their marriage vows never happened. They went into that phase of life together, as they had lived. I think it’s wonderful.

  3. And Dave, I think you have been brainwashed.

    There is nothing wonderful about this story. We are not even told the means of death, which could be gruesome. Poison? Guns?

  4. Dave has it right. The power to control our lives includes, crucially, the power of deciding when and how to end it. Religion and custom puts this power in the hands of our rulers and forbids us to exercise and control what is ours. We are living at a time in history when people are rebelling against this anti-people tradition. We are conquering our fear of death, which is an ending which is an inevitable part of our lives.

    This account of their death is a love story. Tod Fletchers beloved could no longer endure the suffering of her afflictions. He had promised her, when the time came, to help her end them. Since we live in a barbarous society, he had to sacrifice the last years of his own life to fulfill his pledge. He took her to Point Reyes, a very beautiful place, to carry out his promise, which he did.

    They deserve our deepest respect.

    1. Only an atheist could respond as you do, Mark. Poor, sad, fellow.

      “Tod Fletchers beloved could no longer endure the suffering of her afflictions.”

      So, all such cased in history–and in the future–are rightly dealt with via murder?

      “He had promised her, when the time came, to help her end them.”

      Big whoop. Euthanasia is murder, pal. You love to use the euphemism “homicide” to indict what used to be Western civilization. Try it here, and be honest to thine own self, for once.

      “Since we live in a barbarous society,”

      Name one that isn’t, today or any time in the past (I’m certain that you think Stalin and Mao and Castro fit the bill–please, please, PLEASE! oblige me, and admit that I’m right about that).

      “he had to sacrifice the last years of his own life to fulfill his pledge”

      His pledge was based upon false assumptions, and thus should not be honored by outside observers (if this story can be taken at face value), because he was a moral ignoramus. He is to be pitied, not lauded. There is a spirit realm we enter when we die, and we will deal with the consequences, the repercussions of our actions in this dimension when we go there. It is not for us to decide to murder others for their own good, and it is not a virtue to murder ourselves to “join” the victim.

      How is it possible to know that by murdering oneself we will arrive in the same location in the spiritual dimension as the person we murdered out of pity? No one could know that. Only an atheist could hold the view that this is a good thing. And as for atheists, the old saying goes, you may not believe in God, but He certainly believes in you.

      Cheers, mate! Here’s looking at you on the other side, what dreams may come.

      1. Patrick, I agree with you. The idea of “assisted suicide” is the first step on a slippery slope of further diminishing the value of life. Life involves joy, as well as suffering. If one is suffering it eventually ends.

        In this case, I certainly know nothing about the couple involved. For that matter, how do we know its “suicide”, other than an alleged email message?

        In James’ clip of Gary Webb, I have little doubt that he was “suicided”. He had a book coming out and he wasn’t “depressed”. It sounds like this gentleman had a book on the way as well.

        If they can’t stop the publication of someone’s work they can certainly put a crimp on any post-publication discourse by having the author unavailable for comment.

        As far as the other goes, I believe we don’t have choice as to when we enter this world, or exit it. I think we’re all here for a purpose. We should stick around to see that through.

      2. But we must circle back around to: do we own ourselves or does the state? For surely, if we own ourselves we must have the moral authority to end ourselves in a manner of our choosing. How can we assume to know what will be judged as right or wrong in the “spirit realm”? How can we know what Mrs. Fletcher’s wishes were? How can we say with 100% certainty that we would not act the same way under similar circumstances? We can’t.

      3. Well, to clarify my earlier post, I personally don’t think we are totally in control of our existence. But that is a matter of faith. I am certainly aware that many do not see it that way.

        Whether we agree or not, I think that we are responsible for our own actions While I certainly would wish others to do or not do certain things, I am not in control of them and I don’t have to bear the results of their actions.

        I will never say “that was courageous” or something because I don’t believe that it is. That doesn’t mean that I don’t have sympathy for those who suffer. I know that I have no business “playing God” for them and neither does the state.

        Whether someone does this as a personal “pact” or not, we are left with only the perpetrators assertion of that. Whether someone asks you to murder them or not, you are still committing murder.

        It is increasingly obvious that life itself has been cheapened. We neither need other individuals or governments making decisions for us regarding who lives or who dies. Despite the current fad, there is nothing “noble” about it.

      4. tammie, our way of life is being destroyed, and we observe it happening out in the open. People are indeed entitled to hold any opinion they wish; someone, for instance can believe that Islam should rule the world, and everyone be forced to endure sharia–complete with 100% female genital mutilation. Or hold the opinion that Stalin’s tens of millions murdered was fantastic, only he should have murdered a whole lot more. People are entitled to believe that Castro’s political torture-dungeons have never been full enough.

        The correct response to these evil opinions is aggressive. And mockery. Aggressive mockery. That’s the ticket.

        The wholesale rejection of the transcendent value of human life that characterizes this horrible new civilization that replaced the West must be aggressively called out. The people who think it is normal and good to commit murder are not deserving of respect. They are deserving of being publicly shamed, and challenged to repent. Silence is approval.

      5. @ patrick who wrote me:

        The correct response to these evil opinions is aggressive. And mockery. Aggressive mockery. That’s the ticket.

        I disagree. Mockery can be a great form of communication in certain venues, but not everywhere. Not when conversing, for example, which is what we do here. “Aggressive mockery” as you call it, kills conversation. And it certainly changes no one’s mind. It’s purpose is to “silence” the person who is being mocked, who stance is likely hardened.

        “Aggessive mockery”, attacking someone personally, in a civilized forum such as this one is not civilized but rather a form of bullying.

        + I don’t think I’ve ever seen an “evil opinion” on this site – Prof Tracy does a nice job moderating.

        PS and hey, I though Patrick chats amiably?

      6. You’re new around here, tammie, so you can be forgiven for not knowing the nature of Mark’s discourse. Yes, I do chat amiably, even with Mark–most of the time–but advocacy of murder, like advocacy of sharia does not warrant amiability. It warrants active denunciation.

        Mark pontificates, repeatedly, that white people are by definition racists, that I and that James Tracy are racists. He is a vicious attacker, and he knows that we are in no way racist, but he delights in casting that aspersion. He loves to say that Western civilization is based on what he calls “homicide.” He usually ties it in to “racism.” Yet here he delights in murder, even romanticizing it. Amazingly, Mark, a Jew, romanticizes this murder by alluding to Wagner, an anti-semite so pure that his music was for decades banned in Israel. He is an anti-semitic Jew.

        Incidentally, you are the one who called my response to the egregious Mark “aggressive and belittling”; I just picked up on your terminology. I agreed with the “aggressive” part, because it’s true, but I bent the false “belittling” part into the true thing, which is mockery.

        For years Michael Ledeen has pointed out the swaggering, moronic evil of the Islamo-fascists, these Moslem supremacists who boast that Islam will one day rule the world. It is from him that I learned the power of aggressive mockery. Our great power in opposing such people is not in anger, but in laughter. To laugh at them is to deflate them. And, in truth, these people like Mark (and buffoonish fellows like Adnan Chowdhury) are hilarious. Mark is the most racist person I have ever encountered, absolutely consumed with race, and ironically constantly accusing everyone else of racism, most of whom never regard other people’s race, and are simply amazed that race can be shoehorned into the conversation. But he insists upon forcing the issue, and falsely accusing innocent people because of his obsession.

        So don’t accuse me of harming your delicate sensibilities, stumbling into the middle of a long running conversation, not understanding the context, tammie, as if you are a tact policeman.

        I recently embedded a fantastic video on the subject of false accusations of racism by so-called “progressives” by the great Pat Condell. Here is another. His first words express my sentiments exactly: [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z38qqSZZEc&w=560&h=315%5D

      7. Oops! My spell check on the name of the British Moslem wacko led me to the wrong guy (the comment I am alluding to is currently in moderation, so those reading between no and its release might be mystified by what follows). The name is supposed to be Anjem Choudary.

        I embedded the Pat Condell rant because it expresses the outrage free humans should properly express when confronted with an unmitigated evil that seeks to stop free expression and moral virtue. Shrinking violets are responsible for the loss of freedom, when faced by bullies. Being “polite” in the face of such attacks is not the correct response. We should be irate. We need to fight back. We should openly shame people who actively, publicly, seek to destroy our way of life. They should not be treated with deference and with respect. They should have tomatoes and rotten cabbages thrown at them, and be forced to leave the public stage in humiliation. If we do not take such responsibility, we will have no one to blame but ourselves when the likes of Mark, and the sharia-Moslems, win.

      8. The last I will say on the subject to you, Patrickspeaksamiably&aggressivelymocks who wrote: …when the likes of Mark, and the sharia-Moslems, win.

        the two are hardly (i.e. not!) comparable!

      9. @patrick who wrote: So don’t accuse me of harming your delicate sensibilities, stumbling into the middle of a long running conversation, not understanding the context, tammie, as if you are a tact policeman.

        you have a lot of scorn and a lot of time on your hands…

      10. Patrick I used to like you but you have been antagonizing, condescending, and outright rude as of late. What’s wrong man? Let Mark have his “crazy” views that you don’t agree with.
        I think you both have profound things to say at times, but this constant belittling is getting old, it’s immature, and it detracts from the real topic and reason why we are here. Are you here to divide us? Ever so amiably?

      11. Well, gran1te, it’s a reasonable question, worthy of a response.

        As anyone who has observed my behavior here over the years can tell, I tend to ignore trolls, and Mark–who is not a troll, just a very strange political thinker. So why did I behave so differently in this instance? Because it is a topic of particular importance to me.

        My life’s work is the discovery that Western civilization came to an end, definitively, with the 9/11 event. The 20th century was a transition time, phasing out the existing civilization and bringing to conscious awareness the assumptions that make up the new one. When I wrote my book on the subject I tended to believe this transition began in 1913, but I have since modified that view substantially; I now mark the beginning of the transition with the wrong side winning Lincoln’s unnecessary war.

        Antonio Gramsci was a communist who travelled to the new workers’ paradise in Russia to revel in the wonderfulness of the bold new future. He advised Stalin that it would be impossible to communize Europe, because Europe’s people had Christian minds: to get them to accept communism, they would have to stop having Christian minds, and this would take time. The way to do it is in fact what happened, over the course of a century: the long march through the institutions. The chief target was the family. (Stalin didn’t like being contradicted, and Gramsci escaped just in time, only to spend the rest of his life in an Italian prison, where he wrote his philosophy down, giving American “progressives” the blueprint they have used to destroy the West.)

        Francis Schaeffer, toward the end of his life, predicted that Mark’s viewpoint would prevail. In the 1960s he predicted that abortion and euthanasia would become normative in the West. He was scoffed at. When he said that America was already a post-Christian society, he was laughed at–there’s a church on every corner, Frank, you dummy!

        In my book, I say that Schaeffer was certainly correct, but it is even worse now. With the end of Western civilization, we are now a post-post Western society. They could scoff hat him half a century ago, because everyone still possessed the memory of what it was like when everyone shared the basic assumptions of the Christian morality and worldview. No one growing up today has any such foundational mindset.

        So Mark’s despicable admiration for euthanasia, abortion, and suicide must be confronted in the harshest possible way. Especially, considering his monumental hypocrisy, constantly attacking what used to be the West as being based on what he euphemistically calls “homicide.”

        These ideas must be fought, even if we know it is a losing battle. Mark’s disgusting hypocrisy will not be changed by my standing on the precipice of the castle, sword drawn, exhausted–but other readers might take notice, and regard the passion, and heed the warning. Human life has become rendered valueless in our lifetime, and that’s nothing to be proud of.

        To defend abortion is perhaps the most evil thing imaginable. And to delight in euthanasia is probably the most heart-rendingly tragic in its delusory misguidedness.

        Mark holds very bad ideas, pretty much across the board, and I usually do not comment about them. But happy talk about the murder of innocents it beyond the pale.

        Hope that helps.

        1. Thanks Patrick. I agree with your two turning point dates – (except Lincoln’s war – are you saying we should have kept slaves)? I think the potential may have been in the making in ww2, with the catalyst being Kennedy, or George Sr being appointed head of CIA.

          That said, I am agnostic – because I can neither confirm nor deny god’s existence of bound by the rules of this world. I don’t believe anyone can, for that matter. I think the bible myth is just that, and actually what Mark said about how religion goes hand in hand with government as the opiate of the masses I thought was spot on.
          I hate to get into religion again here, but it’s not so much that we have driven God away, we just have less book burnings and more educated people that can finally choose between faith in a universal truth ie; what is tangible and real (mathematics) or faith in handed down in traditions and superstitions. My life’s work has been discovering the former whilst initially seeking the latter. I presume Mark has come to many of the same conclusions.
          Now for me, I read what you say and can’t help but feel the same way about you, as you do about Mark. I feel I could easily debunk most any religion to the point of ruining lives. But I try to bite my tongue, because some people prefer delusion and that is their right. It’s not my place to “save them” from what I perceive as ignorance or willful disregard of plain-as-day fact.
          I don’t want to change your mind, but I have no problem hearing anybody’s reasoning behind their beliefs, so long as they reciprocate the same to me.
          Like I mentioned before though, we are all here for the same reason, so despite some fundamental ‘belief’ differences – we still have the same enemy and goal: freedom. Dividing the oppressor should take priority over dividing ourselves.
          I hope I didn’t offend, this country was built on that first freedom to choose ones beliefs.

        2. Patrick – what is the name of the book you wrote? Your unabridged approach to the English language is as eloquent as it is entertaining – would love to read it.

      12. Gran1te: It’s called How the West Was Lost. If you click on my name, it will take you to my web site, and if you click on the book cover you can read a sample.

        As for proving God’s existence, indeed that’s not what we do here. I only brought up Gramsci and Schaeffer to demonstrate how we got to the point where the murder of innocents (60 million+ in America alone since Roe) has become something to be proud of, and the murder of the suffering is quickly joining that sad trend. And suicide is a deeply saddening thing, not a heartwarming one. You complained about my uncharacteristic harshness in this instance, and I tried to demonstrate why I take the subject so seriously, and have so little patience with Mark’s words–especially in light of his constant invocation of the term “homicide.”

        I have written a great deal here at MHB about the real cause of the War to Prevent Southern Independence (it was the tariff) and Lincoln himself (a tyrant), so I won’t repeat it now, and bore everyone. But I’ll say this: the war was not fought to end slavery; indeed Lincoln did not free a single slave. We would not today have slavery if the North lost the war, anymore than Brazil and Britain and France still hold slaves. America is unique in world history, in fact, in that it is the only country that believes that 800,000 people had to die to end it. Slavery has been absolutely normative throughout human history, and when it has been ended it was always done peacefully. The slave economy could never have adapted to the industrial revolution, for one thing–it’s too expensive.

        Had the North lost the war, slavery would have been peacefully ended, gradually; the blacks would have systematically been prepared for the burdens of living in a free enterprise economy, over time, instead of being dumped out in the cold, unprepared–which is what the Yankees cruelly did to them. Oh, and had the North lost the war, the leviathan state we are enslaved by today would not have emerged.

        1. I would like to add something because it amazes me that people still believe anywhere from 600,000 to 800,000 Americans died brutally to free slaves. Rank and file soldiers are usually from the lower economic strata of society, are the bulk of the fighting force, and suffer the most casualties. Lets say half, three to four hundred thousand of the dead, were southerners. Would these economically disadvantaged folk actually go to their deaths so slave owning plantation owners could have cheap(not really) labor? I think not. That is unless, the south had the most successful propaganda program of all time. To die in droves like that, the soldiers have to believe in something, and I don’t think keeping slaves in chains was the primary motivating factor. The same goes for the north. Altruism has its boundaries. The elementary school story of “the war to end slavery” is a lie.

        2. I don’t think they explicitly teach that the war was completely over abolition, however that was the strade that broke the camels back. It was clearly a dispute over how to run the government the south wanted to remain state sovereign and the north wanted federalism. The south fought for what they interpreted were their rights, and the north denied them that. If you had to sum it up – the main contention point was slavery. i don’t think either side cared much for the slaves – so yes framing it as the fight FOR abolition is wrong. The fight was over state rights, the souths secession was a culmination of complaints, notably their interpretation that slavery should be a choice that each state could make. Perhaps divisive propaganda has exaggerated this one aspect, similar to another minorities’ in ww2.

        3. Rich: Perhaps someone else has responded to your comment about why Southern boys went to fight already (I haven’t read all the comments yet), but I was under the impression that they fought, not for (not really) cheap labor, but for their way of life. In essence, for “hearth and home”. The progressive North was looking to eliminate all they held dear; black slaves were just an element of that. It’s more surprising, to me, anyway, that so many Northerners were willing to fight to the death.

        4. I agree, but being one of those people who signed on the dotted line for king(president, but what’s the difference anymore) and country, all I can say is that youth is wasted on the young. If you like to talk about the history behind how we got where we are, I encourage you and others to go to Patrick’s blog. His post titled, “Electric Pollution, the Regulatory State, and the Wild West” is a good place to start.

          I’m not encouraging people to leave MHB, this place is great. Sometimes its easy to get off topic on these subjects though, and Patrick does like his history, so give a look and comment. You too Gran1te.

      13. The war was the ultimate clash between Hamilton and Jefferson, largely embodied and carried on in the Congress by Clay and Calhoun. Lincoln loved Clay like a father. (Me, I’d probably not shake the man’s hand.)

        Slavery was practiced in all the colonies; it was introduced here by businessmen in London; by the 19th century it was entrenched very deeply. It was a system that men inherited.

        After the coup that was true Constitutional Convention and the invention of the cotton gin, most slavery was only profitable in the South (although New York was built by slaves). After the Louisiana Purchase, and Jackson’s removal of the Choctaw Indians, the greatest migration in history sent most black slaves into what we today think of as the Deep South. This truly separated the culture of the North from that of the South.

        Hamilton wanted industry and banking to be the kind of life that characterized America; Jefferson wanted the languid pace of contemplation and day-to-day quality of experience to be the prevailing values. These were completely incompatible visions. The mercantilists and bankers depended upon tariffs; the South embodied the ideal of free trade. This tension grew more intense over the decades after the Constitution was ratified, like a spring winding tighter–which is why the intensity of Norther outrage was so horrific when that bound-up energy was released.

        Abolitionism was a propaganda ploy worthy of the false-flag topics we deconstruct here at MHB. Almost no one in the North cared about black people, at all, except for the fact that almost every Yankee hated them. It is one of the greatest lies ever told. Almost no Northern soldier invaded the South with the idea that he was helping to end slavery. (I hesitate to use the word “almost,” suspecting that the correct number is zero.)

        Rich is quite right when he says “Would these economically disadvantaged folk actually go to their deaths so slave owning plantation owners could have cheap(not really) labor? I think not.” They were fighting because their country had been invaded by an enemy that intended to destroy their languid, relaxed, culture, and impose Yankee values of watching the second-hand and empowering absentee monopolists empowered by Washington. They were right to fight back, because that’s exactly what happened. Too bad they lost.

        1. That’s it Patrick, I’m buying your book. James – I disagree with Patrick a lot, but I vote him mvp of your blog. If only every blog had a commenter like Patrick, haha. Love it.

    2. Well, yes, according to HIM. We haven’t heard from HER.

      There is nothing “wonderful” about a murder-suicide.

  5. A sad article. I was familiar with his work but unaware of his personal circumstances. A devoted husband for sure.
    I must confess that before I read the text, the “suicide” of Gary Webb flashed into my mind. Probably because I heard about a new movie about his saga coming out soon.
    I need to work on keeping my cynicism in check.
    Current events can make that a full time job.

    1. A slippery slope.

      First came abortion, the murder of people who are in no pain at all, who are looking forward to everything wonderful this world has to offer. Sniffing the spring air. Sniffing the autumn air. Playing with puppies and kittens. Tasting single malt scotch, and learning to love the taste of caviar.

      A few decades down the road, a very large percentage of our population is positively PROUD of defending it. The horror. This idea, the possibility that a formerly morally informed people could become so depraved, is terrifying.

      Start murdering people not hidden inside the bodies of of other people, and you gain another degree of shamelessness. The secrecy element can’t work there.

      No, murder in the open, once justified by a new, monstrous anti-morality, will only make everything bad about this new civilization even worse. We don’t know what the new, post-Western civilization is going to look like when it’s fully formed, but we shouldn’t allow hard cases to make even badder law.

      People have always endured terrible troubles. We haven’t always felt the best thing is to murder them. Think about that. Why does it suddenly feel proper to do it in our era? Answer: because the West ceased to exist, and we now live in a new civilization, with new assumptions about reality.

      We who have grown up in the West must resist this new civilization. We must defy it. We must not allow the programming to capture our minds, and like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, be transformed into the likeness of these zombies. Stand for the true morality of the Old Testament, and the New.

      Once we, as a race, who have agreed that anyone who wants to murder their kids–so long as they are inside their moms–start to agree that it’s just fine to murder grown people who are suffering, it is a very small step to agreeing that it’s just fine to murder kids who have made it outside the pubic region, and started breathing air. And those old, worthless, pensioners who are nothing but a drain.

      Think again, Barbara.

      1. Abortion isn’t murder, Patrick, and a fetus is not a kid. It cannot live on its own. That’s the point: it’s part of the mother’s body. She has the right, up to the point of viability, to do as she likes with her own body.

        Keep the state out of these private decisions, eh?

      2. Isaiah 49:5…”And now the Lord says – He who formed me in the womb to be His servant to bring Jacob back to Him and gather Israel to Himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord and my God has been my strength…”

        Read also Jeremiah 1:5. And if you care to learn further, Dinophile, what the Lord has to say about when a human becomes a human (the Jeremiah passage describes this as BEFORE conception), simply google what the Bible has to say on this.

        And if you don’t care what the Lord says on this matter, your problems run far deeper than your depraved stance on “moms” rights regarding the human being formed in her by the Lord.

        Consider what the Lord says, Dinophile (and any who would agree with him/her) before its too late.

        As for the article (the bombastic assertions of some commenters quickly derails original intent), if the limited details of what we have been told is actual, please don’t romanticize the event. Seriously, let the Hallmark Channel come up with their own website.

        Can we ever totally dismiss “official” involvement in the deaths/suicides of any who have gone public in refuting the religion of 911, or Sandy Hook. or Boston?

        No.

      3. ” it’s part of the mother’s body. ”

        No, dino, it’s not. The baby has different DNA from its mother.

        I, and every other living being, am comprised of cells. Trillions of them. Each and every one of them contains the exact same genetic code. It defines me. Any one of them could be used to clone me.

        That is to say, my optic nerve is made up of cells, as is the lining of my stomach. Every cell that comprises every part of my body has exactly the same DNA.

        Women are no different from men in this regard. Their skin and their spleens and their thyroid glands all contain the same DNA. Every single cell. It’s what makes us all uniquely ourselves.

        Women, uniquely, are privileged to bring entirely different humans beings into this world, through the agency of their bodies. But these new humans are not a part of the women themselves, like a liver or toe or an optic nerve. The child growing within them is a different human being.

        We are entitled to cut off our own toe, if we wish. We are allowed to hire a surgeon to remove an eyeball, for whatever reason, and after doing so we remain ourselves, although mutilated. Why are we allowed to do this? Because these are our own organs; they belong to our self. How do we know this? Because they contain our own DNA. We can do to our own bodies what we wish. We can rent them out for sex, we can tattoo them, we can mutilate them, because they are ours.

        But you cannot say that about the new, completely different human a woman is privileged to bring into the world.

        That new person is not an organ of the woman.

        That new person cannot be removed like a gall bladder, an no moral event occurs.

        To murder that new human, to deny him or her the chance to taste single malt scotch, to visit India, to marry and love the children that marriage creates, is not the same as removing a tumor, as you imply.

        You should reconsider this opinion of yours, dino. It is wrong.

        1. OK–you are, of course, right that the fetus has different DNA.

          But your referring to the mother as merely the “agent” by which this new being’s existence may become manifest on earth is a real eye-opener. Let’s think about the civil rights of the mother, for a change–and it IS a matter of the civil rights, as well as the health, of an EXISTING human. You insist she must be effectively enslaved to produce a baby, once she conceives, simply because your Catholic faith demands this interpretation, and your Catholic faith must be imposed on her. What if she doesn’t share your faith?

          There isn’t any state that calls abortion in the first trimester murder. After that point, the baby is possibly viable, so it CAN be deemed murder under Roe v. Wade. Viability is being pushed back every day through new technological advancements. Abortion may become moot once viability reaches the point of conception. Then, of course, you will argue that there is a divine right of the “unconceived” to use a particular woman as its “agent” to be born.

          Wait–the Catholic church already thinks that, at least it used to. Not sure where it is now. I certainly know Catholic women who have taken the pill and have had D&C’s, too. Looks like these women don’t agree with you.

          Anyway, to tie this discussion to the murder-suicide pact, I abhor the latter, as I said, because it’s different. It concerns existing humans. Some posting here think suicide is also a civil right–but in this case, the person suffering was murdered. Moreover, “assisted suicide” demands the participation of someone who might have an ulterior motive. Who’s to know whether the doctor has a stake in the insurance policy? I recall Kevorkian cases who might have lived, but were unduly influenced by that crackpot, who simply enjoyed watching people die.

      4. Patrick,
        I’ve had this discussion with many people. What used to be “unthinkable”, is now commonplace. Convenience, takes precedent over sacredness.

        Those who view humans as the center of the Universe will not understand. For them we are all here for pleasure and any problems are aberrations.

        I agree with you that countless generations have endured unspeakable anguish because they humbled themselves before God. Doing so doesn’t mean that one has to like their situation. They must accept it.

        For those who know better, killing for convenience will be harshly judged. There is no question that abortion has cheapened societies values. It is a difficult problem for most. It is a moral conundrum. On one had they would say that “the state has no business making decisions about “my body”. On the other, is it about “your body”. Would you be opposed to the state trying someone who murdered a friend or relative?

        For me, in a perfect world, each individual would make the proper decision based on their respect for human life. In practice I don’t see that happening. It is an emotionally charged issue for many. I understand the issue. It deserves careful and prayerful consideration.

      5. Maybe the controversy is a product of the push to replace normative Christian dogma with a global hedonism based on nihilism. For those who subscribe to this, knowingly or otherwise, we are nothing but a collection of cells. All that exists is visible in the material universe. We are all “accidents”.

        It is clear that this is the preferred “faith” being manufactured in countless ways. There is no sense of the sacred. We are our own “gods”.

        What served to elevate humanity for centuries is now to be abandoned in favor of a slide to basic instincts. It is the religion of total self-interest. It is the absence of grace.

        At a minimum it may be wise to consider that one should not get their morality from TEE VEE or politicians. Having an informed conscience is not like going to a fast food restaurant. Making appropriate decisions based on our moral and ethical sense is the essence of our existence on Earth. Matters of life and death are not to be decided in the shallow end of the grace pool. It is a “full immersion” responsibility.

      6. I believe, if I recollect correctly, that you are a lawyer by training, dino, so you have to know how poor your reasoning is.

        Before I get to that, let’s make clear: I am not a Catholic.

        “You insist she must be effectively enslaved to produce a baby, once she conceives”

        The problem is in the nature of the thing, not in an external imposition. Sexual intercourse results in pregnancy, predictably. If a woman does not know that, it does not exempt her from the truth that murder is evil. We did not create the nature of the world. Just as we did not choose for the Sun to rise in the East and cannot change that fact, it is a fact of life that new lives are born through females. Is the Sun a slave? (Or more precisely, is the Earth a slave, being that the Sun does not “rise”–but you take my meaning).

        “What if she doesn’t share your faith?”

        This is like saying that if I don’t believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun it must stop doing so. It is in the nature of the thing. It has nothing to do with faith.

        “There isn’t any state that calls abortion in the first trimester murder.”

        So? This political model is capable of defining what it means to be human? Surely, you don’t hold that view. The scum that rise to the top of the political world are the last place to turn for such answers.

        “After that point, the baby is possibly viable, so it CAN be deemed murder under Roe v. Wade.”

        Roe is the worst of all possible examples to evoke. It is the acme of wretchedly bad reasoning. The fact that it is treated as law is the worst indictment against America I can come up with.

        If the German government , under Hitler, made the murder of Jews perfectly legal, would it cease to be murder? When Lincoln’s generals systematically exterminated the plains Indians, under orders of Washington, in the aftermath of Lincoln’s war, was it not murder? Can human law redefine sin?

        “Abortion may become moot once viability reaches the point of conception.”

        No, because human law can’t redefine “murder” based on technological advances. Either the human inside the human is human, or it’s not.

        “Then, of course, you will argue that there is a divine right of the “unconceived” to use a particular woman as its “agent” to be born.”

        Pleas don’t put words in my mouth. This has nothing to do with the essential fact that the child is not a “part” of the mother, which is the point of my reply to you.

        “Looks like these women don’t agree with you.”

        It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks. Individual humans cannot redefine the mature of the moral universe on their own whim, any more than they can redefine the laws of gravity and magnetism and the process of photosynthesis. We simply accept the world as it is.

        I appreciate your last paragraph. It helps the case against euthanasia.

      7. Replying to Patrick’s last post, e.g., “This political model is capable of defining what it means to be human?”

        No, it defines what MURDER is. “Murder” means “the unlawful killing of a human being by another with malice aforethought,” according to Black’s Law Dictionary. It’s a legal term. The intentional killing of a dog with malice aforethought is not murder, therefore.

        You overlook the most glaring difficulty surrounding the illegalizing of abortion, which is that you can’t enforce it. Women have done it for thousands of years. They just didn’t tell anyone.

      8. As a lawyer, dino, you really should parse these things better.

        “Replying to Patrick’s last post, e.g., “This political model is capable of defining what it means to be human?

        “No, it defines what MURDER is. “Murder” means “the unlawful killing of a human being by another with malice aforethought,” according to Black’s Law Dictionary. It’s a legal term.”

        Do you think that Henry Campbell Black meant that if a pack of corruptocrats who happened to climb their way into an American legislative body decided that killing Irish people is legal it would not be murder? English Common Law assumes natural law. Crimes God defined cannot be abrogated by a pack of drunken scoundrels, just because they happen to be the scum who rose to the top of an evil state some year somewhere, and passed some legislation. That law would be illegal.

        The Commandment God gave Moses, popularly mistranslated in English “Thou shalt not kill,” in Hebrew actually reads “Thou shalt not murder.” Of course, God’s law is full of capital crimes. Killing people is just fine with God, given the circumstances. Murder is not. The circumstances that require killing mostly involve guilt for a crime. They are very well described, these crimes, and one gets a clear idea what God has on His mind when he lays the system out.

        I bring up the Old Testament because it was written between three and four thousand years ago. That is, the distinction between “killing” and “murder” has been with us for millennia. Black was well aware of this tradition.

        “The intentional killing of a dog with malice aforethought is not murder, therefore.”

        There is no “therefore” there for any real reason, dino. It’s a nonsequitor. You are misdirecting here. I was saying that a pack of despicable men might gather within an evil state and decree that a category of human beings is not human, and thus killing them is just fine with the state, and thus not murder. But of course you knew that, which is why you started talking about dogs. So, I ask you, what if it was the Irish that a collection of drunken, pedophile, legislators defines as not human, as the vile scum of the Roe decision defined the human children inside human women, of any and all ethnicities?

        “You overlook the most glaring difficulty surrounding the illegalizing of abortion, which is that you can’t enforce it. Women have done it for thousands of years. They just didn’t tell anyone.”

        I don’t overlook it. It means nothing in the context of this conversation, is all. Human children growing inside their mothers cannot be executed without morality being addressed, any more than they can be once they have grown up. They are a category of person. They are human–because they have human DNA, and if they are not murdered, they will be able to taste wine, and learn to water ski, and grow a vegetable garden. They will not become aardvarks or tomatoes or paramecium. They are people. And they are not guilty of crimes that justify them being killed. Therefore (and this really is there for a justified reason) killing them is murder.

        And Black would agree with me.

        1. As to my example (“killing a dog is not murder”), it came from an actual torts exam (although the hypothetical the students had to analyze had to do with the killing of a dolphin, not a dog).

          There are elements to the crime of murder, one of which is that there be a living human victim.

          No one will ever agree on what “God’s law” is. That’s why we have human-made laws, enacted by consensus, written down, and published, so we have notice of what the society we live in will punish us for. However strongly you feel the legal definition of murder does not go far enough, it’s still the legal definition.

      9. So, to be clear, you do insist that if a pack of louts wins the legislative (or judicial) branch, and decrees that it is legal to kill Irish people just because they are Irish, it is not murder when someone intentionally makes an Irishman dead.

        That’s what you’re saying, right? Legislation, either from legislators or from the Bench, defines who can be killed, no matter how arbitrarily? There is no genuine standard? No absolute Law against which all human law must be measured? Please advise.

        1. This has gotten tedious. Patrick, your analogy to killing people just because they are Irish is a red herring.

          All legislation results from a decision to draw a circle around one or a few types of things, in this case conduct. Acts inside the circle are treated as criminal, and punished, and everything outside the circle is OK. Choices are made. To pass muster under the lowest-scrutiny standard of equal protection, the classification must be merely rational. There would be no rational distinction between Irish humans and other humans, when it comes to murder. There IS a rational distinction between fetuses in the first trimester, which are not sufficiently developed to live on their own, and babies who have been born, and can. Thus, the line has been drawn here.

          In legislation there’s also a balancing process and consideration of problems of enforcement.

          With the definition of murder, we are also looking to English common law and precedents which go back several hundred years. Pushing the line back to the point of viability was actually a huge change in the direction YOU want to go.

      10. Tedium is in the mind of the converser, dino. Myself, I greatly admire you, based upon what you have revealed about yourself these recent years, here, and love engaging in the current chat. The despicable person currently ensconced as Attorney General once said we are a bunch of “cowards” because we are not racists like him, obsessed with the subject, refusing to get over it and move on. One wonders why.

        I’m a little bit surprised that this subject is so touchy on your side, though. Oh, well.

        That is to say, I would find impossibly tedious any conversation about race with the egregious Eric Holder. Discussing race with an intensely committed racist is pointless, and not even fun. Such people have no sense of humor.

        I hope that is not the case with you, dino, regarding the current discussion. No sense of humor?

        “There would be no rational distinction between Irish humans and other humans, when it comes to murder.”

        I wonder about that. Once Lincoln’s masters won the war, they dispatched his generals to the lands across the Mississippi, to eradicate the Indians over there. It was systematic murder. Genocide, on the largest scale. All perfectly “legal.”

        I said Irish because any ethnicity could stand in. We don’t need the familiar tropes, which only pre-program the mind. I thought. Wrongggggggg….evidently. So let’s stick with an example we know, not theoretical. The plains Indians. The government Lincoln bequeathed us with decreed that those humans were to be killed, with no consequences, because…well, just because.

        Just because.

        “There IS a rational distinction between fetuses in the first trimester, which are not sufficiently developed to live on their own, and babies who have been born, and can. Thus, the line has been drawn here.”

        Who draws that line? This is playing God. You mentioned the idea that technology will systematically enable children to be kept alive earlier and earlier, making the point of “viability” moot. This is vitally important to your argument, but it also destroys it. Men in black robes, in other words, don’t decide. If scientists can keep a two-celled human alive and growing, as you said, it’s a human being–but it won’t be until then.

        Isn’t that silly?

  6. Another sad loss for the liberty community: On September 29, 2014, Dr. Stan Monteith, 85, passed from natural causes; he had been diagnosed with cancer some months before, but wasn’t listed as his cause of death. He will be missed.

  7. “My lords, if you would hear a high tale of love and of death, listen now to that of Tristan and his queen Isoult; how to their full joy, but to their sorrow also, they loved each other; and how at last they died of that love together upon one day, she by him and he by her”

    “long ago, when Mark was king of Cornwall…” but that was another Mark and in another age when nobility was in flower, a time for the Romance of Tristan and Isoult. We have inherited the childish superstitions of that age, and the perverted anti-people values. But, as well, there were moments of fineness that can teach us to live without the fear and deceit that prevent us from aborting the conventional pieties.

    It can teach us that love can defeat death, and the fear that accompanies it. The devotion of our current lovers reduces death to a mere….nothing. Enveloped by the Romance of a previous age, we can allow ourselves to be moved by the majesty and nobility of their devotion and love, she of him and he of her.

  8. Damn, another 911 truther is dead? That is creepy! I guess it’s best to shut up and be the robot they want? I would rather be in any other country right now. America is so so bad. Even China looks better. Phillip Marshall, the Echardt woman, Michael Raparrt, countless others, wtf? You die cuz you are smart or know physics? Because you can’t be brainwashed? That is pure evil.

  9. Abortion isn’t murder, Patrick, and a fetus is not a kid. It cannot live on its own. That’s the point: it’s part of the mother’s body. She has the right, up to the point of viability, to do as she likes with her own body.

    Why is it always the people that didn’t get aborted say things like this?

      1. And as Josef Stalin once said, to make an omelet you have to break some eggs. He meant that it is a good thing when tens of millions of human beings are murdered to create a state where no one has any freedom at all.

        The hideous Gloria meant that the 60-or-so million murdered in America since Roe–and counting–are a magnificent thing to contemplate. How she can look herself in the mirror is beyond me.

        Monsters are eminently quotable. But evil people’s monstrous “wisdom” is properly used in the opposite way they intend it.

        Murder, Incorporated. Gloria Steinem’s America. God save help us from people who can’t see the pure evil in such a notion.

  10. Lophatt said:
    I think we’re all here for a purpose. We should stick around to see that through.

    This is it. This is the motivation for pressing on no matter what. God gave us life simply to see it through. To cut it short by your own hand is to deny yourself or others a chance to find Him. God simply does not like that.

  11. I’m certainly glad that you know what God likes and doesn’t like, Rich, it must come in handy. That way you can help pass laws telling them what they can and can’t do. How this squares with the freedom that you Proclaim, I wouldn’t know. And then, too, other people have gods who have likes and dislikes, it has tended to make for a lot of killing.

    I don’t have any gods myself, Rich, I believe in people. And that people are responsible for their own lives. And their deaths as well. But then that is something that you can believe even if you have a god of your own. If you believe that God has given a person the freedom to choose, it is simply a matter of not foreclosing their choice. By imposing yours.

    1. Wow Mark, not a month ago you accused me of having no ideas. Now, from just two sentences, you have inferred that I wish to deprive the world of life and liberty, have passed legislation to do so, proclaim liberty, and hate people. Would you like to take a shot at me being on the grassy knoll too? Please, let me get elected to some kind of office before I go medieval like your heroes, Stalin, Mao, and Fidel. You know, people power guys. Atheists killed more people in the 20th century than any religion ever dreamed of, and oppressed and brutalized them before doing so. Just because there are those of us that wish to give a little credit to the creator, doesn’t mean we do not take responsibility for our actions. I can bet you have hidden behind the oppressors you lament many times when the hate you spew writes a check you can’t make good on. Have a nice day, and maybe up your dosage.

      1. “Now, from just two sentences, you have inferred that I wish to deprive the world of life and liberty, have passed legislation to do so, proclaim liberty, and hate people.”

        Ain’t it grand, Rich, when we find that Mark has put us in the crosshairs? It’s hilarious. He’s great; no matter how well we describe his errors, it’s like water off a duck. He’ll be back with the same tired tropes, having taken no instruction, next time ’round. None so blind as those who will not see. An enthusiastic endorser of murders he endorses emphatically denounces “homicides” he finds distasteful. Talk about fertile grounds for healthy mockery!

        1. Much like your “truth vaccination” theory on the mock jetliner post, Small doses of this Mark, could help immunity against the next generation Mark, which will most likely be in stores this Christmas.

  12. My bs meter spiked on this article. “Close Associate of David Ray Griffin”, Todd Fletcher, is reported by Fred Burks to have killed himself and murdered his wife. Burks knows this as he received a letter from Todd declaring he was going to do it and a call to local authorities who would give no information “but it became very clear in our conversations that the bodies had been found at Point Reyes National Seashore in Marin County, CA”.

    Was the letter typewritten? Was it signed? Has the signature been authenticated? Why does my search engine reveal zero results on this tragedy, aside from the said letter and related blog sites?

    Search works extremely well when searching for ebola in the US.

    Is this a psyop meant to scare the truthers? Meant to promote the upcoming book? That was an excellent video posted by Sofia Smallstorm on how the Pentagon bombing had to be just that and not an airplane as officially reported.

    Is this more in your face, what are you going to do about that?

    Regarding the other topic of whether or not I would ask my loving husband to kill me, no I love him too much to ask that, would find a way to take care of it if I was so desperate.

    I object that my tax dollars are used to abort millions of lives, supporting the likes of Gosnell, who herded the government paid victims into slaughter houses with the worst of conditions and the elite had ‘clean’ conditions, even though their aborted fetuses were also stored in shoe boxes.

    I object that our government threatened hundreds of millions in fines to no less the Sisters of Mercy for not providing birth control even while their sole function is to provide medical care to the most down trodden, regardless of their religion.

    I object that the likes of Hobby Lobby had to fight to the supreme court, to defend their believe that 4 abortive causing “birth control” methods was against their religion. While they ‘won’ the case ultimately, the MSM will lead you to believe they refuse birth control for their workers, who by the way start out making $15 an hour with health care benefits.

    Having an abortion is a life changing event, not a simple procedure as the doctors would lead you to believe. All the women I know who will admit it, feel tremendous guilt and regret.

    One in particular comes to mind. She was a twin, with a very close relationship to her twin. After her abortion was in denial that she was still pregnant, although it was very apparent to all of us. She did give birth and the doctors explained you were having twins and we only aborted one.

    Lost track of this troubled soul, but imagine the grief, guess you can never tell your child you tried to abort them, or probably the reason you are so screwed up is that I killed your twin.

    1. that’s a horrible story. men too, feel horrible guilt and emptiness after taking part in abortion. It never goes away either- you just have to live with it. Seeing the incredible beauty and unique personalities of my own children I always wonder what the others would have been like and the shame and emptiness I feel when I think about the gift I discarded is indescribable. I can only imagine what that mother feels.

      1. Believe most of us have made terrible mistakes that we regret. If we could back and make different decisions because of the knowledge we now have, we would.

        That’s not possible and we must forgive ourselves and try not to fail for lies again. Have known women who have had several abortions and when they finally decided it was time for a family, they realized they could not. I believe it was all related.

        If we speak up at every opportunity, perhaps others will join in and stand up for the rights of all lives.

  13. Religion is a power ideology. It extols and legitimates the sanctity of Divine power and, more covertly, earthly power. That is why the power systems of states have sponsored and subsidized it for the past 5 millennia or so; it unites people around the authorized power system.

    Religious truthers posit powerful gods, or All-powerful God Almighty, that we must respect, fear, sacrifice for, appeal to, and above all, OBEY. Just as we must respect, fear, sacrifice for, appeal to and obey earthly power. Religious ideology contains a concealed political sub-text that legitimates authority, and induces people to do what they are told and to think what they are taught.

    But often we are BAD, and we don’t. In order to extol power, power systems throughout history, astonishingly, have demeaned and denigrated people. We are sinful, depraved, willful and full of Pride even though, according to religion, we are weak and powerless, and we tend to want to make love to the wrong people at the wrong time in the wrong way.

    Traditionally women have been held responsible for this, but religion is also racist, classist, ageist, and promotes the values and truths of the dead to enslave the living. Religion has traditionally been a war ideology, and the more reactionary and oppressive states still send clergy with the military to justify the Patriotic slaughter.

    The anti-people values of religion are obscured by the Proclaimed values of a Benevolent and Loving God. The tribal god of the ancient Hebrews in the Old Testament, sacred to the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, was a homicidal maniac who enjoined the Hebraic tribes to slaughter every living thing in the towns they conquered. Surprisingly, most people don’t know this because it is Unmentionable to the mainstream truth consensus. And the Holy Scripture is so boring, tedious, lengthy and preposterous almost no one reads it, so most people don’t know of the perverted anti-people values it endorses, or are too cowardly to say so if they did.

    We are now in a period of religious reaction when the anti-people exhibition of the Abrahamic religions are obvious: Judaism has created an apartheid state oppressing Muslims; Christianity is slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people and threatens to destroy hundreds of millions more with nuclear weapons; and Islam is promoting terrorist war as a religious duty. America is degenerating at a rapid historical rate, the power system is increasingly oppressing and impoverishing the people, and killing them, often randomly, with a militarized police and intelligence agency.

    What must be done in the 21st century is to transform the power religions into a people religion. To transform the secular humanism of the West into a more compelling spiritual humanism. The earth is in a preliminary process of transformation in what Zbig Brzezinski has called the “global political awakening.” He warns his fellow imperialists that they must recognize it to manipulate it. But the people and their badass truthers can do so as well, and the 21st century can be a stage when this ideological and conceptual conflict can be played out.

      1. Rich, like you, I only catch up with television shows a season late, via netflix. I’m in the most recent season available of Boardwalk Empire just now. Although I couldn’t make it all the way through this comment of Mark’s (I don’t have the imaginatory stamina), it struck me that as I read it I was hearing the voice of the wonderful Dr. Narcisse. I doubt I’ll ever read Mark again without hearing it in that voice–to my utter delight, I might add. The false loftiness of the rhetoric, contrasted with the utterly base underlying principles the man actually holds to. Delightful! Great television. And scintillating internet conversation. Would this place be half as much fun without the phantasmagorically racist Mark calling us racists all the time, with no basis whatsoever? No! A thousand times no!

        1. I have never watched “Boardwalk Empire” , but I looked up Dr. Narcisse on youtube. If they ever bring back the Chrysler Cordoba, he should be the spokesman. “Rich Corinthian leather… I like what they have done to my car”.

          I often attribute unique voice’s to people I have never heard. It makes the reading more fun, especially when the writing is not!

      2. Mark said “But often we are BAD”…”we tend to want to make love to the wrong people at the wrong time in the wrong way.”..? Code?

    1. Wow. Thanks Mark. Did you just come up with that on the spot? I think I’m going to put a majority of that down under my favorite quotes.

  14. It’s not “truth” if someone is still promoting the “Pentagon Missile” hoax and its many variants.

    Mr. Griffin is a theology professor – not an investigative reporter. He got fooled by the “no plane” nonsense, time to admit the mistake and move on to real topics, although suppressed warnings and overlapping wargames are apparently more boring than science fiction fantasies.

    “Just because someone says the government is lying does not mean they are telling the truth.”
    — John Judge, Coalition on Political Assassinations

    1. How did he get “fooled by the ‘no plane’ nonsense”?

      The “no plane” theory is the one most strongly supported by the evidence, especially since the video Smallstorm posted a link to recently explained how the lightpoles at the Pentagon could have been felled.

      The theory is better referred to as “no planes hit any buildings,” however, because planes with passengers did take off. Or maybe “no planes crashed.” No one knows what happened at Shanksville, but that sure doesn’t look like a plane crash, either.

      The video by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is compelling, too; wow. That cellphone call from a Flight 93 passenger to one man which ends with the whispered words “This is a frame” is chilling.

    2. Right…and “investigative reports” have such an excellent track record.

      We can’t “move on”, because we’ve hardly gotten the facts down to where they should be – CONCRETE, and without wiggle room.

  15. I did not write the above comment about the pentagon missile published under “Mark,” and it is the precise contrary of my views. Evidently the Cognitive Infiltrators are stepping up their attack, as I expected they would, to disrupt the development and emergence of the truth that subverts the untruth of American power. I would guess my comment on traditional religion stimulated the attack.

  16. James, can you tell where this false “Mark” comment came from? As far as I know, its a new tactic by the Infiltrators, and if it occurs to me, it can occur to anyone.

    1. Mark, how judgmental. How do you know this Mark is false? He could be the real deal. I smell psyop. You are “Mark” aren’t you?

    2. There is a “mark” that commented “on 2014/10/07 at 12:32 am,” who has also identified himself via a website with a corresponding email. This is the only other Mark that’s commented in the past week. Perhaps this is a coincidence.

  17. Mark using a common name is probably the reason, it has happened to me a few times and just went to using acronyms that others are not likely to use.

    Here is a remarkable man – George Washington Hunt, who tried to warn us about the new world order back in 1992! Wonder why I never heard of him.

    My video was doing creepy things with this but it is not important to the information he relays.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvl5OxoE3zU

    His website lives on after his passing and now a lot of this madness is making sense.
    http://www.thebigbadbank.com/

      1. My Norton virus protection did not alert me. It does quite often suggest that Breitbart may be unsafe, when I close and reopen it, it works fine. I am thinking it might be all the advertisements or maybe nsa does not want me to go there!

  18. The fake “Mark” above attacks David Ray Griffin, a seminal figure in the 9/11 truth movement, and wants us to ‘admit the mistake’ and change the topic from the media fraud of the Pentagon attack.

    An investigation of the Pentagon attack is very dangerous because the people killed and the offices hit were investigating the accounts of the Pentagon budget, where over a trillion dollars is missing. Media feedback suggests that the American public, both Dems and Repubs, are disturbed by the waste of money allocated to the military, so its a sensitive public relations subject.

    Commenters have suggested that the fake Mark is just somebody else with the same name, and the real deal. I don’t think so.

Comments are closed.