You never know how much you really believe anything until its truth or falsehood becomes a matter of life and death. It is easy to say you believe a rope is strong as long as you are merely using it to cord a box. But, suppose you had to hang by that rope over a precipice? Wouldn't you then first discover how much you really trusted it?

C.S. Lewis
The subject of COINTELPRO in the 911 Truth Movement is becoming more and more contentious everyday. By way of shedding some light upon this problem, I want to paraphrase a story from the Bible found in II Chronicles, Chapter 18. It's a classic description of COINTELPRO:

Once upon a time there were two kings of two small kingdoms who were related by marriage. King One decided to pay a visit to his brother-in-law, King Two. When he arrived for his visit, he was welcomed by the King Two who had prepared all sorts of goodies and entertainment.

After a great deal of feasting and merriment, King Two told his brother-in-law, King One, that he was inclined to think of all of his possessions as mutual and he hoped King One felt the same. This made King One a bit nervous and he wondered what all of this was leading up to -- and he was not long in finding out. King Two wanted to make war against one of his neighbors and take territory and spoil, but, in order to do this, he needed help. He knew that his brother-in-law, King One, had no such warlike ambitions, and he had been softening him up to ask for his aid.

King One was a bit taken aback at this request and asked if they could call in some prophets to find out if this plan was a wise course to pursue. King Two immediately called in 400 "approved" prophets. All of them, to a man, commended the plan and praised the acumen and ambition of their king. But, King One was still uneasy -- something just did not feel right in his gut. He asked if there was not just one more prophet to consult. As it turned out, there was, but King Two warned the first king not to expect much from this fellow for there was hatred between himself and this obnoxious fellow and this bad feeling made this last prophet prejudiced against any plan of King Two. Having thoroughly assassinated the last prophet's character, he then called him in.

Sure enough, the last prophet contradicted all 400 of the other prophets and told King Two that he would die if he went into battle. To punish this rudeness, King Two had the offending oracle cast into prison to meditate on his negativity until the return of the two kings and the triumphant army. The 401st prophet got in the last dig by commenting acidly to King Two that he would certainly be amazed if he returned!

But, King Two had a plan. Having now persuaded his brother-in-law, King One, to accompany him on this war, he arranged to go into battle dressed as a common soldier, while his relation went attired in his kingly robes.

As it turned out, the enemy soldiers had been instructed to immediately seek out and kill only King Two. During the course of the engagement, the enemy soldiers chased after the only man attired as a king, and, finding him to not be the man they were after, they turned in rage and frustration and killed the nearest common soldier -- who happened to be King Two.

There are several important lessons in this story. The first is that when dealing with COINTELPRO, we are dealing with many unknown terms and unless fundamental alterations in activity and direction are made by knowing things that are not apparent on the surface, you have no possibility of success.

The second is: truth very often manifests in the very same ratio depicted in this story -- 400 to 1.

A third, and no less important lesson is, people seldom want to hear the truth because it is hard to give up their warm and fuzzy beliefs.

And, finally, the easiest way to avoid truth is to assassinate either the speaker or his character.

Many of you reading this blog are aware of the recent articles published on the Wing TV website regarding Jeff Rense, Alex Jones, Mike Ruppert, and other leaders of the so-called 911 Truth movement. Interestingly, instead of Rense, Jones and Ruppert responding intelligently to the issues raised, they either respond with ad hominem attacks or do not respond at all personally. However, it is clear that they are bothered because of the fact that a strange third party defamation attack on Lisa Guliani began and it can clearly be linked to Genesis Communication Network,

Having been subjected to exactly the same type of Third Party Attack myself, I recognized it for what it was and immediately stood up with Lisa to point out that there was simply no excuse for that kind of filth being spewed about anyone under the guise of "free speech." Funny, "free speech" was the same justification given for spewing lies about me and my family. Now, because we defended Lisa and Victor, this defamation attack spread out to include our own discussion forum on numerous threads. It seems that the trolls were out in force.

Well, we are, in general, accustomed to COINTELPRO and for the new reader who wants to know more, I have a whole series of Blog posts on the subject:

Is The Abovetopsecret Forum COINTELPRO?

How to spot COINTELPRO Agents

COINTELPRO Updates: Abovetopsecret

Abovetopsecretcom: COINTELPRO Update

Abovetopsecretcom COINTELPRO Update-2

More Inside Scoops On

The Spider and The Fly

The C ult of The Plausible Lie Ethics and google bombs

COINTELPRO: Abovetopsecretcom and Project SERPO EXPOSED!, Project SERPO and Psy-Ops

Destruction of the 911 Truth Movement

Protocols of the Pathocrats

Four-and-half Years

Smokescreens, Snowjobs and Long Knives

Is Anybody Getting It Yet?

Terrorism and the Three Sillies

New Doctored Video of the Pentagon Attack Proves that No Boeing was Involved

So, like I said, we've been dealing with this nonsense for 14 years, long before 911...

But what was really shocking in the attacks on Lisa Guliani was the absolute and utter filth that these bottom feeders were resorting to. You can read the descriptions of the inception and progress of the attacks on the Wing TV site, but just to give you an idea: one of the Revereradio attack dogs posted an image on our forum that was - to put it delicately - the most graphic representation of coprophilia that our moderators had ever seen. I can't attest to this because I have never seen a representation of coprophilia nor do I want to. I am aware that it was discussed in the secret OSS report, written by Dr. Walter Langer and other American psychoanalysts, released finally in 1971 and subsequently published as a book, The Mind of Adolf Hitler. That was back in the early days of our work on psychopathy at which time I also noted that Hervey Cleckley, in his seminal work on psychopathy discussed the fact that psychopaths seemed to need to "take vacations into filth" as though behaving in a civilized way was stressful on them. Cleckley suggested that psychopaths give "indications of a distaste for life as it is ordinarily lived, a nauseous rejection of what is normally most appealing, and an attitude toward the world that finds in our chief sources of joy the equivalent of decay and filth." In other words, these aren't just people who have issues of love and hate confused, they are individuals who actually derive pleasure from hurting other people the same way a normal person feels pleasure from doing something nice for another person. What a great bunch of people Rense, Jones and the rest of them have as their "fans." Can we say "birds of a feather?"

Now, in order to consider this problem intelligently, there are some important concepts that I would like to cover before I get to the issue of COINTELPRO in the 911 Truth Movement because these issues are crucial to understanding just exactly what is going on here and "who's on first".

First of all, let's get a really good grip on the issue of psychopathy. It is probably the most important thing you'll ever learn in your entire life and you can take that to the bank. Psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski describes the psychopath as follows:
Essential psychopathy: ...[L]et us characterize another heredity-transmitted anomaly whose role in the [generation of evil] on any social scale appears exceptionally great. ...

Analysis of the different experiential manner demonstrated by these individuals caused us to conclude that their instinctive substratum is also defective, containing certain gaps and lacking the natural syntonic responses commonly evidenced by members of the species Homo Sapiens. Our species instinct is our first teacher; it stays with us everywhere throughout our lives. Upon this defective instinctive substratum, the deficits of higher feelings and the deformities and impoverishments in psychological, moral, and social concepts develop in correspondence with these gaps.

Our natural world of concepts - based upon species instincts as described in an earlier chapter - strikes the psychopath as a nearly incomprehensible convention with no justification in their own psychological experience. They think that customs and principles of decency are a foreign convention invented and imposed by someone else, ("probably by priests") silly, onerous, sometimes even ridiculous. At the same time, however, they easily perceive the deficiencies and weaknesses of our [understanding] of psychological and moral concepts in a manner somewhat reminiscent of the attitude of a contemporary psychologist - except in caricature.

The average intelligence of the psychopath, especially if measured via commonly used tests, is somewhat lower than that of normal people, albeit similarly variegated. Despite the wide variety of intelligence and interests, this group does not contain examples of the highest intelligence, nor do we find technical or craftsmanship talents among them. The most gifted members of this kind may thus achieve accomplishments in those sciences which do not require a correct humanistic world view or practical skills. (Academic decency is another matter, however.) Whenever we attempt to construct special tests to measure "life wisdom" or "socio-moral imagination", even if the difficulties of psychometric evaluation are taken into account, individuals of this type indicate a deficit disproportionate to their personal IQ.

In spite of their deficiencies in normal psychological and moral knowledge, they develop and then have at their disposal a knowledge of their own, something lacked by people with a natural world view. They learn to recognize each other in a crowd as early as childhood, and they develop an awareness of the existence of other individuals similar to them. They also become conscious of being different from the world of those other people surrounding them. They view us from a certain distance, like a para-specific variety. Natural human reactions - which often fail to elicit interest to normal people because they are considered self-evident - strike the psychopath as strange and, interesting, and even comical. They therefore observe us, deriving conclusions, forming their different world of concepts. They become experts in our weaknesses and sometimes effect heartless experiments. The suffering and injustice they cause inspire no guilt within them, since such reactions from others are simply a result of their being different and apply only to "those other" people they perceive to be not quite conspecific. Neither a normal person nor our natural world view can fully conceive nor properly evaluate the existence of this world of different concepts.

A researcher into such phenomena can glimpse the deviant knowledge of the psychopath through long-term studies of the personalities of such people, using it with some difficulty, like a foreign language. ...

A normal person can learn to speak their conceptual language even somewhat proficiently, but the psychopath is never able to incorporate the world view of a normal person, although they often try to do so all their lives. The product of their efforts is only a role and a mask behind which they hide their deviant reality.

Another myth and role they often play, albeit containing a grain of truth in relation to the "special psychological knowledge" that the psychopath acquires regarding normal people, would be the psychopaths' brilliant mind or psychological genius; some of them actually believe in this and attempt to insinuate this belief to others. ...

All researchers into psychopathy underline three qualities primarily with regard to this most typical variety: The absence of a sense of guilt for antisocial actions, the inability to love truly, and the tendency to be garrulous in a way which easily deviates from reality....

Our first contact with the psychopath is characterized by a talkative stream which flows with ease and avoids truly important matters with equal ease if they are uncomfortable for the speaker. His train of thought also avoids those abstract matters of human feelings and values whose representation is absent in the psychopathic world view unless, of course, he is being deliberately deceptive, in which case he will use many "feeling" words which careful scrutiny will reveal that he does not understand those words the same way normal people do. We then also feel we are dealing with an imitation of the thought patterns of normal people, in which something else is, in fact, "normal". From the logical point of view, the flow of thought is ostensibly correct, albeit perhaps removed from commonly accepted criteria. A more detailed formal analysis, however, evidences the use of many suggestive paralogisms. ...

One would expect them to feel guilty as a consequence of their many antisocial acts, however their lack of guilt is the result of all their deficits, which we have been discussing here. The world of normal people whom they hurt is incomprehensible and hostile to them, and life for the psychopath is the pursuit of its immediate attractions, moments of pleasure, and temporary feelings of power. ...

In their book Psychopathy and Delinquency, W. and J. McCord say the following about them:

The psychopath feels little, if any, guilt. He can commit the most appalling acts, yet view them without remorse. The Psychopath has a warped capacity for love. His emotional relationships, when they exist, are meager, fleeting, and designed to satisfy his own desires. These last two traits, guiltlessness and lovelessness, conspicuously mark the psychopath as different from other men.

The problem of a psychopath's moral and legal responsibility thus remains open and subject to various solutions, frequently summary or emotional, in various countries and circumstances. It remains a subject of discussion whose solution does not appear possible within the framework of the presently accepted principles of legal thought.
Now, it's pretty easy to identify the gutter type of psychopath which is in evidence in the attacks on Lisa Guliani, but it isn't so easy to spot what we call the "ambulatory" psychopath, and what some researchers call the "socially adjusted" or "compensated" psychopath. These are individuals who lack, as Lobaczewskis describes it, the normal human instinctive substratum, but who are, shall we say, a bit smarter than their fellows and learn how to mask their deficits even better because it gets them what they want.

The claim that more "psychopaths" come from impoverished backgrounds and are "victims of society" seems to be coming under some revision. As Robert Hare points out, yes, there are many psychopaths who are also "anti-socials" but there seem to be far more of them that would never be classified as anti-social or "sociopathic."

In a recent paper, "Construct Validity of Psychopathy in a Community Sample: A Nomological Net Approach, Salekin, Trobst, Krioukova, Journal of Personality Disorders, 15(5), 425-441, 2001), the authors state:
Psychopathy, as originally conceived by Cleckley (1941), is not limited to engagement in illegal activities, but rather encompasses such personality characteristics as manipulativeness, insincerity, egocentricity, and lack of guilt - characteristics clearly present in criminals but also in spouses, parents, bosses, attorneys, politicians, and CEOs, to name but a few. (Bursten, 1973; Stewart, 1991). Our own examination of the prevalence of psychopathy within a university population suggested that perhaps 5% or more of this sample might be deemed psychopathic, although the vast majority of those will be male (more than 1/10 males versus approximately 1?100 females).

As such, psychopathy may be characterized ... as involving a tendency towards both dominance and coldness. Wiggins (1995) in summarizing numerous previous findings... indicates that such individuals are prone to anger and irritation and are willing to exploit others. They are arrogant, manipulative, cynical, exhibitionistic, sensation -seeking, Machiavellian, vindictive, and out for their own gain. With respect to their patterns of social exchange (Foa & Foa, 1974), they attribute love and status to themselves, seeing themselves as highly worthy and important, but prescribe neither love nor status to others, seeing them as unworthy and insignificant. This characterization is clearly consistent with the essence of psychopathy as commonly described.

The present investigation sought to answer some basic questions regarding the construct of psychopathy in non forensic settings... In so doing we have returned to Cleckley's (1941) original emphasis on psychopathy as a personality style not only among criminals, but also among successful individuals within the community.

What is clear from our findings is that (a) psychopathy measures have converged on a prototype of psychopathy that involves a combination of dominant and cold interpersonal characteristics; (b) psychopathy does occur in the community and at what might be a higher than expected rate; and (c) psychopathy appears to have little overlap with personality disorders aside from Antisocial Personality Disorder. ...

Clearly, where much more work is needed is in understanding what factors differentiate the abiding (although perhaps not moral-abiding) psychopath from the law-breaking psychopath; such research surely needs to make greater use of non forensic samples than has been customary in the past."
Psychologist Martha Stout writes:
Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.

And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools.

Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless.

You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience, that they seldom even guess at your condition.

In other words, you are completely free of internal restraints, and your unhampered liberty to do just as you please, with no pangs of conscience, is conveniently invisible to the world.

You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of people, who are kept in line by their consciences will most likely remain undiscovered.

How will you live your life?

What will you do with your huge and secret advantage, and with the corresponding handicap of other people (conscience)?

The answer will depend largely on just what your desires happen to be, because people are not all the same. Even the profoundly unscrupulous are not all the same. Some people - whether they have a conscience or not - favor the ease of inertia, while others are filled with dreams and wild ambitions. Some human beings are brilliant and talented, some are dull-witted, and most, conscience or not, are somewhere in between. There are violent people and nonviolent ones, individuals who are motivated by blood lust and those who have no such appetites. [...]

Provided you are not forcibly stopped, you can do anything at all.

If you are born at the right time, with some access to family fortune, and you have a special talent for whipping up other people's hatred and sense of deprivation, you can arrange to kill large numbers of unsuspecting people. With enough money, you can accomplish this from far away, and you can sit back safely and watch in satisfaction. [...]

Crazy and frightening - and real, in about 4 percent of the population....

The prevalence rate for anorexic eating disorders is estimated a 3.43 percent, deemed to be nearly epidemic, and yet this figure is a fraction lower than the rate for antisocial personality. The high-profile disorders classed as schizophrenia occur in only about 1 percent of [the population] - a mere quarter of the rate of antisocial personality - and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say that the rate of colon cancer in the United States, considered "alarmingly high," is about 40 per 100,000 - one hundred times lower than the rate of antisocial personality.

The high incidence of sociopathy in human society has a profound effect on the rest of us who must live on this planet, too, even those of us who have not been clinically traumatized. The individuals who constitute this 4 percent drain our relationships, our bank accounts, our accomplishments, our self-esteem, our very peace on earth.

Yet surprisingly, many people know nothing about this disorder, or if they do, they think only in terms of violent psychopathy - murderers, serial killers, mass murderers - people who have conspicuously broken the law many times over, and who, if caught, will be imprisoned, maybe even put to death by our legal system.

We are not commonly aware of, nor do we usually identify, the larger number of nonviolent sociopaths among us, people who often are not blatant lawbreakers, and against whom our formal legal system provides little defense.

Most of us would not imagine any correspondence between conceiving an ethnic genocide and, say, guiltlessly lying to one's boss about a coworker. But the psychological correspondence is not only there; it is chilling. Simple and profound, the link is the absence of the inner mechanism that beats up on us, emotionally speaking, when we make a choice we view as immoral, unethical, neglectful, or selfish.

Most of us feel mildly guilty if we eat the last piece of cake in the kitchen, let alone what we would feel if we intentionally and methodically set about to hurt another person.

Those who have no conscience at all are a group unto themselves, whether they be homicidal tyrants or merely ruthless social snipers.

The presence or absence of conscience is a deep human division, arguably more significant than intelligence, race, or even gender.

What differentiates a sociopath who lives off the labors of others from one who occasionally robs convenience stores, or from one who is a contemporary robber baron - or what makes the difference betwen an ordinary bully and a sociopathic murderer - is nothing more than social status, drive, intellect, blood lust, or simple opportunity.

What distinguishes all of these people from the rest of us is an utterly empty hole in the psyche, where there should be the most evolved of all humanizing functions. [Martha Stout, Ph.D., The Sociopath Next Door] (highly recommended)
Now, let me back up just a minute and explain about the instinctive substratum which Lobaczewski describes as being at the root of psychopathy, i.e. theirs is either defective or "different." This is crucial to our understanding of just how and why psychopaths are quite literally a different species. Again, I will quote excerpts from Lobaczewski:
In order to understand humanity, however, we must gain a primary understanding of mankind's instinctive substratum and appreciate its salient role in the life of individuals and societies. This role easily escapes our notice, since our human species' instinctive responses seem so self-evident and are so much taken for granted that it arouses insufficient interest. A psychologist, schooled in the observation of human beings, does not fully appreciate the role of this eternal phenomenon of nature until he has years of professional experience.

Man's instinctive substratum has a slightly different biological structure than that of animals. Energetically speaking, it has become less dynamic and become more plastic, thereby giving up its job as the main dictator of behavior. It has become more receptive to the controls of reasoning, without, however, losing much of the rich specific contents of the human kind.

It is precisely this phylogenetically developed basis for our experience, and its emotional dynamism, that allow individuals to develop their feelings and social bounds, enabling us to intuit other people's psychological state and individual or social psychological reality. It is thus possible to perceive and understand human customs and moral values. From infancy, this substratum stimulates various activities aiming at the development of the mind's higher functions. In other words, our instinct is our first tutor, whom we carry inside all our lives. Proper child-rearing is thus not limited to teaching a young person to control the overly violent reactions of his instinctual emotionalism; it also ought to teach him to appreciate the wisdom of nature contained and speaking through his instinctive endowment

This substratum contains millions of years' worth of bio-psychological development that was the product of species' life conditions, so it neither is nor can be a perfect creation. Our well known weaknesses of human nature and errors in the natural perception and comprehension of reality have thus been conditioned on that phylogenetic level for millennia.

The common substratum of psychology has made it possible for peoples throughout the centuries and civilizations to create concepts regarding human, social, and moral matters which share significant similarities.

Inter-epochal and interracial variations in this area are less striking than those differentiating persons whose instinctual human substratum is normal from those who are carriers of an instinctual bio-psychological defect, though they are members of the same race and civilization. ...

Man has lived in groups throughout his prehistory, so our species' instinctual substratum was shaped in this tie, thus conditioning our emotions as regards the mining of existence. The need for an appropriate internal structure of commonality, and a striving to achieve a worthy role within that structure, are encoded at this very level. In the final analysis, our self-preservation instinct is rivaled by another feeling: the good of society demands that we make sacrifices, sometimes even the supreme sacrifice. At the same time, however, it is worth pointing out that if we love a man, we love his human instinct above all.

Our zeal to control anyone harmful to ourselves or our group is so primal in its near-reflex necessity as to leave no doubt that it is also encoded at the instinctual level.

Our instinct, however, does not differentiate between behavior

motivated by simple human failure and behavior performed by individuals with pathological aberrations.

Quite the contrary: we instinctively tend to judge the latter more severely, harkening to nature's striving to eliminate biologically or psychologically defective individuals. Our tendency to such evil generating error is thus conditioned at the instinctual level.

It is also at this level that differences begin to occur between normal individuals, influencing the formation of their characters, world views, and attitudes. The primary differences are in the bio-psychical dynamism of this substratum; differences of content are secondary. For some people the sthenic instinct supersedes psychology; for others, it easily relinquishes control to reason. It also appears that some people have a somewhat richer and more subtle instinctual endowment than others. Significant deficiencies in this heritage nevertheless occur in only a tiny percentage of the human population; and we perceive this to be qualitatively pathological. We shall have to pay closer attention to such anomalies, since they participate in that pathogenesis of evil which we would like to understand more fully.

A more subtle structure of effect is built upon our instinctual substratum, thanks to constant cooperation from the latter as well as familial and societal child-rearing practices. With time, this structure becomes a more easily observable component of our personality, within which it plays an integrative role. This higher effect is instrumental in linking us to society, which is why its correct development is a proper duty of pedagogues and constitutes one of the objects of a psychotherapist's efforts, if perceived to be abnormally formed. Both pedagogues and psychotherapists sometimes feel helpless, if this process of formation was influenced by a defective instinctual substratum.

Thanks to memory, that phenomenon ever better described by psychology, but whose nature remains partly mysterious, man stores life-experiences and purposely acquired knowledge. There are extensive individual variations in regard to this capacity, its quality, and its contents. A young person also looks at the world differently from an old man endowed with a good memory. People with a good memory and a great deal of knowledge have a greater tendency to reach for the written data of collective memory in order to supplement their own.

This collected material constitutes the subject matter of the second psychological process, namely association; our understanding of its characteristics is constantly improving, although we have not yet been able to shed sufficient light upon its nurturance. In spite of, or maybe thanks to, the value judgments contributed to this question by psychologists and psychoanalysts, it appears that achieving a satisfactory synthetic understanding of the associative processes will not be possible unless and until we humbly decide to cross the boundaries of purely scientific comprehension.

Our reasoning faculties continue to develop throughout our entire active lives, thus, accurate judgmental abilities do not peak until our hair starts greying and the drive of instinct, emotion, and habit begins to abate. It is a collective product derived from an interaction between man and his environment, and from many generations' worth of creation and transmission. The environment may also have a destructive influence upon the development of our reasoning faculties. In its environment in particular, the human mind is contaminated by conversive thinking, which is the most common anomaly in this process. It is for this reason that the proper development of mind requires periods of solitary reflection on occasion.

Man has also developed a psychological function not found among animals. Only man can apprehend a certain quantity of material or abstract imaginings within his field of attention, inspecting them internally in order to effect further operations

of the mind upon this material. This enables us to confront facts, affect constructive and technical operations, and predict future results.

If the facts subjected to internal projection and inspection deal with man's own personality, man performs an act of introspection essential for monitoring the state of a human personality and the meaning of his own behavior. This act of internal projection and inspection complements our consciousness; it characterizes no species other than the human. However, there is exceptionally wide divergence among individuals regarding the capacity for such mental acts. The efficiency of this mental function shows a somewhat low statistical correlation with general intelligence.

Thus, if we speak of man's general intelligence, we must take into account both its internal structure and the individual differences occurring at every level of this structure. The substratum of our intelligence, after all, contains nature's instinctual heritage of wisdom and error, giving rise to the basic intelligence of life experience. Superimposed upon this construct, thanks to memory and the associative capacity, is our ability to effect complex operations of thought, crowned by the act of internal projection, and to constantly improve their correctness. We are variously endowed with these capabilities, which makes for a mosaic of individually variegated talents.

Basic intelligence grows from this instinctual substratum under the influence of an amicable environment and a readily accessible compendium of human experience; it is intertwined with higher effect, enabling us to understand others and to intuit their psychological state by means of some naive realism. This conditions the development of moral reason.

This layer of our intelligence is widely distributed within society; the overwhelming majority of people have it, which is why we can so often admire the tact, the intuition, of social relationships, and sensible morality of people whose intellectual gifts are only average. We also see people with an outstanding intellect who lack these very natural values. As is the case with deficiencies in the instinctual substratum, the deficits of this basic structure of our intelligence frequently take on features we perceive as pathological.

The distribution of human intellectual capacity within societies is completely different, and its amplitude has the greatest scope. Highly gifted people constitute a tiny percentage of each population, and those with the highest quotient of intelligence constitute only a few per thousand. In spite of this, however, the latter play such a significant role in collective life that any society attempting to prevent them from fulfilling their duty does so at its own peril. At the same time, individuals barely able to master simple arithmetic and the art of writing are, in the majority, normal people whose basic intelligence is often entirely adequate.

It is a universal law of nature that the higher a given species' psychological organization, the greater the psychological differences among individual units.

Man is the most highly organized species; hence, these variations are the greatest. Both qualitatively and quantitatively, psychological differences occur in all structures of the human personality dealt with here, albeit in terms of necessary oversimplification. Profound psychological variegations may strike some as an injustice of nature, but they are her right and have meaning.

Nature's seeming injustice, alluded to above, is, in fact, a great gift to humanity, enabling human societies to develop their complex structures and to be highly creative at both the individual and collective level. Thanks to psychological variety, the creative potential of any society is many times higher than it could possibly be if our species were psychologically more homogeneous. Thanks to these variations, the societal structure implicit within can also develop. The fate of human societies depends upon the proper adjustment of individuals within this structure and upon the manner in which innate variations of talents are utilized.

Our experience teaches us that psychological differences among people are the cause of misunderstandings and problems. We can overcome these problems only if we accept psychological differences as a law of nature and appreciate their creative value. This would also enable us to gain an objective comprehension of man and human societies; unfortunately, it would also teach us that equality under the law is inequality under the law of nature.


The human personality is unstable by its very nature, and a lifelong evolutionary process is the normal state of affairs. Some political and religious systems advocate slowing down this process or achieving excessive stability in our personalities, but these are unhealthy states from the point of view of psychology. If the evolution of a human personality or world view becomes frozen long and deeply enough, the condition enters the realm of psychopathology. The process of personality transformation reveals its meaning thanks to its own creative nature which is based on the conscious acceptance of this creative changing as the natural course of events.

Our personalities also pass through temporary destructive periods as a result of various life events, especially if we undergo suffering or meet with situations or circumstances which are at variance with our prior experiences and imaginings. These so-called disintegrative stages are often unpleasant, although not necessarily so. A good dramatic work, for instance, enables us to experience a disintegrative state, simultaneously calming down the unpleasant components and furnishing creative ideas for a renewed reintegration of our own personalities. True theater therefore causes the condition known as catharsis.

A disintegrative state provokes us to mental efforts in attempts to overcome it in order to regain active homeostasis. Overcoming such states, in effect, correcting our errors and enriching our personalities, is a proper and creative process of reintegration, leading to a higher level of understanding and acceptance of the laws of life, to a better comprehension of self and others, and to a more highly developed sensitivity in interpersonal relationships. Our feelings also validate the successful achievement of a reintegrative state: the unpleasant conditions we have survived are endowed with meaning. Thus, the experience renders us better prepared to confront the next disintegrative situation.

If, however, we have proved unable to master the problems which occurred because our reflexes were too quick to repress and substitute the uncomfortable material from our consciousness, or for some similar reason, our personality undergoes retroactive egotization...

The above-mentioned statements about human nature apply to normal people, with a few exceptions. However, each society on earth contains a certain percentage of individuals, a relatively small but active minority, who cannot be considered normal.

We emphasize that here we are dealing with qualitative, not statistical, abnormality. Outstandingly intelligent persons are statistically abnormal, but they can be quite normal members of society from the qualitative point of view. We are going to be looking at individuals that are statistically small in number, but whose quality of difference is such that it can affect hundreds, thousands, even millions of other human beings in negative ways.

The individuals we wish to consider are people who reveal morbid phenomena, and in whom mental deviations and anomalies of various qualities and intensities can be observed. Many such people are driven by internal anxieties: they search for unconventional paths of action and adjustment to life with a certain characteristic hyperactivity. In some cases, such activity can be pioneering and creative, which ensures societal tolerance for some of these individuals. Some psychiatrists, especially Germans, have praised such people as embodying the principal inspiration for the development of civilization; this is a damagingly unilateral view of reality. Laymen in the field of psychopathology frequently gain the impression that such persons represent some extraordinary talents. This very science, however, then goes on to explain that these individuals' hyperactivity and sense of being exceptional are derived from their drive to overcompensate for a feeling of some deficiency. This aberrant attitude results in the obscuration of the truth: that normal people are the richest of all. [...]

Nature has designed man to be social, a state of affairs encoded early, on the instinctual level of our species as described above. Our minds and personalities could not possibly develop without contact and interaction with an ever-widening circle of people. Our mind receives input from others, whether consciously or unconsciously, in regard to matters of emotional and mental life, tradition and thought, by means of resonant sensitivity, identification, imitation, and by exchange of ideas, and permanent rules. The material we obtain in these ways is then transformed by our psyche in order to create a new human personality, one we call "our own". However, our existence is contingent upon necessary links with those who lived before, those who presently make up our society, and those who shall exist in the future. Our existence only assumes meaning as a function of societal bonds; hedonistic isolation causes us to lose our selves.

It is man's fate to actively cooperate in giving shape to the fate of society by two principal means: forming his individual and family life within it, and becoming active in the sum total of social affairs based on his - hopefully sufficient - comprehension of what needs to be done, what ought to be done, and whether or not he can do it. This requires an individual to develop two somewhat overlapping areas of knowledge about things; his life depends on the quality of this development, as does his nation and humanity as a whole. [...]

Throughout the ages and in various cultures, the best pedagogues have understood the importance, regarding the formation of a culture and a person's character, of the scope of concepts describing psychological phenomena. The quality and richness of concepts and terminology mastered by an individual and society, as well as the degree to which they approximate an objective world view, condition the development of our moral and social attitudes. The correctness of our understanding of self and others characterizes the components conditioning our decisions and choices, be they mundane or important, in our private lives and social activities.
Note: Lobaczewski's emphasis on language is very important. Semiotics is the study of language or any other symbol system that conveys meaning. One of the great philosophical discussions that has continued for centuries relates to that of the alphabet giver and "namer" of things. Adam is, of course, the one we think of when we think of the "giving of names" to things. In terms of the study of Semiotics, the question is: did he name things based on what they were, in essence, or did he simply create a convention, and arbitrarily name them whatever appealed to him?

The theories of Semiotics propose that there are two levels, or "planes of articulation." At the level of any given language, such as Greek, English, Chinese, or whatever, there is what they call the "Expression plane" that consists of a lexicon, a phonology and syntax. In other words, the Expression Plane is the selection of words that belong to that language, the sounds that the selection of words produce, and the way they are arranged to convey meaning. That is the first plane. The second plane is called the Content Plane. This is the array of concepts that the language is capable of expressing. This last is rather important because, as we have all heard at least once in our lives, Eskimos have many words for snow while people who do not live in an environment where snow and ice are the dominant features, may only have one or two words for these phenomena.

So it is that the "Content Plane" of a language becomes crucial to what can be discussed in that language. In order for the sounds of speech to be meaningful, the words formed out of these sounds must have a meaning associated with them. In other words, the sounds relate to the Content. The Content Continuum represents the Universe or reality to which our words relate as we are capable of conceiving it. We will see this issue again as psychopathic "doubletalk" further on.

Lobaczewski is rightly pointing out that the normal person (not to mention psychology as a whole, though to a lesser extent), has an extremely limited understanding of psychology because we do not have an adequate psychological vocabulary due to the fact that the content continuum of understanding has been artificially truncated, repressed, or otherwise diminished.
The level and quality of a given society's psychological worldview is also a condition of realization of the full socio-psychological structure present as a potential in the psychological variety within our species. Only when we can understand a person in relation to his actual internal contents, not some substituted external label, can we help him along his path to proper adjustment to social life, which would be to his advantage and would also assist in the creation of a stable and creative structure of society.

Supported by a proper feel for, and understanding of, psychological qualities, such a structure would impart high social office to individuals possessing both full psychological normality, sufficient talent and specific preparation. The basic collective intelligence of the masses of people would then respect and support them.

However, there have always been "society pedagogues", less outstanding but more numerous, who have become fascinated by their own great ideas, which might, sometimes, even be true, but are more often constricted or contain the taint of some hidden pathological thought processes. Such people have always striven to impose pedagogical methods which would impoverish and deform the development of individuals' and societies' psychological world view; they inflict permanent harm upon societies, depriving them of universally useful values. By claiming to act in the name of a more valuable idea, such pedagogues actually undermine the values they claim and open the door for destructive ideologies.

At the same time, as we have already mentioned, each society contains a small but active minority of persons with various deviant worldviews, especially in the areas treated above, which are caused either by psychological anomalies, to be discussed below, or by the long-term influence of such anomalies upon their psyches, especially during childhood. Such people later exert a pernicious influence upon the formative process of the psychological world view in society, whether by direct activity or by means of written or other transmission, especially if they engage in the service of some ideology or other.
The point of the above digression is to bring to the forefront of our awareness a most crucial issue: that society contains people who carry the psychological results of social maladjustment and this is at the root of most of our problems. Lobaczewski goes into this in more detail, but for the moment, those details aren't relevant to our discussion. What is relevant is that in our society, it seems that, for the majority of people, their basic intelligence, psychological world view, and moral reasoning have developed improperly. In a minority of theses cases the problem is that the individual carries the cause within themselves as a genetic defect. In other cases (most of them), people have been subjected to psychologically abnormal people as children not to mention psychologically abnormal input from the mass media which - it seems - has been utilized for just this purpose. However the maladjustment occurs, the end result is that such individuals' comprehension of social and moral questions is different, both from the natural and from the objective viewpoint; such people constitute a destructive factor for the development of society's psychological concepts, social structure, and internal bonds especially if they grow up to become psychologists, psychiatrists, doctors, teachers, judges, politicians, members of the clergy, and so on. More frightening still, these are the very professions that attract these types!

The problems arise from a related factor: such individuals feel acutely their "disconnect" and this is felt as a sort of "hunger" - a hole that needs filling - which, utilizing their already twisted and deviant natures, they seek to feed with a certain characteristic hyperactivity. As Lobaczewski says, "they easily interpenetrate the social structure with a ramified network of mutual pathological conspiracies poorly connected to the main social structure. These people and their networks participate in the genesis of that evil which spares no nation. This substructure gives birth to dreams of obtaining power and imposing one's will upon society, and is quite often actually brought about in various countries, and during historical times as well. It is for this reason that a significant portion of our consideration shall be devoted to an understanding of this age-old and dangerous source of problems."

And so it is, deviants dream of gaining power and imposing their will on others in order to feed their psychological deficits. Normal people who aren't aware of this are sitting ducks, easy prey. Such individuals are constantly on the look-out, scanning what is going on in their reality, looking for a platform from which to launch themselves into making their dreams of power and control - authority and respect included - come true. They are attracted to such opportunities like ducks to a Junebug.

That describes the alternative media and the 911 Truth Movement to a "T": a platform for deviants to launch themselves to positions of power and authority.

Now, yes, I can be considered to be a "member of the Althernative Media" and something of a 911 Truth seeker. So where do I get off pointing out all of this stuff and suggesting that the "movement" is not what it is proclaimed to be? We will come to that. The short answer is that I never started out with any intention of being part of the 911 Truth Movement and I certainly never had any ideas of being involved in anything that had the least tendency toward politics.

In any event, let's look back at our little story about the 401 Prophets. When we notice the 401st prophet coming on the scene and certain things are said about him:
King Two warned the first king not to expect much from this fellow for there was hatred between himself and this obnoxious fellow and this bad feeling made this last prophet prejudiced against any plan of King Two. Having thoroughly assassinated the last prophet's character, he then called him in.
Sure enough, the last prophet contradicted all 400 of the other prophets...
Now, it is easy to suggest that the alternative media and the 911 Truth Movement itself is the "401st Prophet" standing against the government party line and its media shills but there is something else we need to consider here: Protocol 12. Let's take a quick look at some of the items on that list:
Protocol 12: Control of the Press

We shall deal with the press in the following way: what is the part played by the press to-day? It serves to excite and inflame those passions which are needed for our purpose or else it serves selfish ends of parties. It is often vapid, unjust, mendacious, and the majority of the public have not the slightest idea what ends the press really serves. We shall saddle and bridle it with a tight curb: we shall do the same also with all productions of the printing press, for where would be the sense of getting rid of the attacks of the press if we remain targets for pamphlets and books? ...

For any attempt to attack us, if such still be possible, we shall inflict fines without mercy.... No one shall with impunity lay a finger on the aureole of our government infallibility. The pretext for stopping any publication will be the alleged plea that it is agitating the public mind without occasion or justification.


NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.

If already now we have contrived to possess ourselves of the minds of the GOY communities to such an extent that they all come near looking upon the events of the world through the colored glasses of those spectacles we are setting astride their noses...

Literature and journalism are two of the most important educative forces, and therefore our government will become proprietor of the majority of the journals. This will neutralize the injurious influence of the privately-owned press and will put us in possession of a tremendous influence upon the public mind .... If we give permits for ten journals, we shall ourselves found thirty, and so on in the same proportion. This, however, must in no wise be suspected by the public. For which reason all journals published by us will be of the most opposite, in appearance, tendencies and opinions, thereby creating confidence in us and bringing over to us quite unsuspicious opponents, who will thus fall into our trap and be rendered harmless.

In the front rank will stand organs of an official character. They will always stand guard over our interests, and therefore their influence will be comparatively insignificant.

In the second rank will be the semi-official organs, whose part it will be to attack the tepid and indifferent.

In the third rank we shall set up our own, to all appearance, opposition, which, in at least one of its organs, will present what looks like the very antipodes to us. Our real opponents at heart will accept this simulated opposition as their own and will show us their cards.

All our newspapers will be of all possible complexions -- aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, even anarchical - for so long, of course, as the constitution exists .... Like the Indian idol "Vishnu" they will have a hundred hands, and every one of them will have a finger on any one of the public opinions as required. When a pulse quickens these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims, for an excited patient loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will, in fact, follow the flag which we hang out for them. ...

By discussing and controverting, but always superficially, without touching the essence of the matter, our organs will carry on a sham fight fusillade with the official newspapers solely for the purpose of giving occasion for us to express ourselves more fully than could well be done from the outset in official announcements, whenever, of course, that is to our advantage.


Thanks to such methods we shall be in a position as from time to time may be required, to excite or to tranquillize the public mind on political questions, to persuade or to confuse, printing now truth, now lies, facts or their contradictions, according as they may be well or ill received, always very cautiously feeling our ground before stepping upon it .... WE SHALL HAVE A SURE TRIUMPH OVER OUR OPPONENTS SINCE THEY WILL NOT HAVE AT THEIR DISPOSITION ORGANS OF THE PRESS IN WHICH THEY CAN GIVE FULL AND FINAL EXPRESSION TO THEIR VIEWS owing to the aforesaid methods of dealing with the press. We shall not even need to refute them except very superficially.

Trial shots like these, fired by us in the third rank of our press, in case of need, will be energetically refuted by us in our semi-official organs....

Our calculations are especially extended to the provinces. It is indispensable for us to inflame there those hopes and impulses with which we could at any moment fall upon the capital, and we shall represent to the capitals that these expressions are the independent hopes and impulses of the provinces. Naturally, the source of them will be always one and the same - ours. WHAT WE NEED IS THAT, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WE ARE IN THE PLENITUDE POWER, THE CAPITALS SHOULD FIND THEMSELVES STIFLED BY THE PROVINCIAL OPINION OF THE NATIONS, I.E., OF A MAJORITY ARRANGED BY OUR AGENTUR. What we need is that at the psychological moment the capitals should not be in a position to discuss an accomplished fact for the simple reason, if for no other, that it has been accepted by the public opinion of a majority in the provinces.
I think that we can pretty easily see the description of the alternative media and 911 Truth movement in the following:
In the third rank we shall set up our own, to all appearance, opposition, which, in at least one of its organs, will present what looks like the very antipodes to us. Our real opponents at heart will accept this simulated opposition as their own and will show us their cards.
...and so we can determine that the alternative media, for the most part, is just part of the Protocol.

So, what to do? How to find our way out of the labyrinth?

Remember what I said about the story of the 401 prophets?
There are several important lessons in this story. The first is that when dealing with COINTELPRO, we are dealing with many unknown terms and unless fundamental alterations in activity and direction are made by knowing things that are not apparent on the surface, you have no possibility of success.

The second is: truth very often manifests in the very same ratio depicted in this story -- 400 to 1.

A third, and no less important lesson is, people seldom want to hear the truth because it is hard to give up their warm and fuzzy beliefs.

And, finally, the easiest way to avoid truth is to assassinate either the speaker or his character.
Indeed, we are dealing with many unknown terms and I want to give an example here.

This morning we received an email as follows:
On 5 Jul 2006 at 10:08, Pauline W____ wrote:

Dear Sir,

I was told recently that Wing T.V. are actually CIA plants? This came from
Fintan Dunne. Do you have any comments on this, as I actually thought that
Signs and Wing were two to be trusted?

Pauline W____
Now, keep that interesting little email in mind as you read the following excerpts by John Kaminski from his article

Agents Provocateur?
How the hell can you really tell
valid criticism from clever deception?
published in June of 2005. (It might be a good idea to click the link and read the entire article to get the full effect of what I am going to reveal to you.)
Honesty is a tricky business. What happens when an honest assessment of the situation actually works against your ultimate objective? What do you do then, when one of life's little riddles sneaks up and bites you on the butt?[...]

More to the point - and in fact exactly on it - is my perspective on the events of September 11, 2001, the day the world changed. Or, as I have said in the title of my booklet, "The Day America Died."
I remember that day all too well. I was standing in front of my TV. I had just awakened and flipped it on, intending to zap the clicker to ESPN to catch the latest sports news, a typical daily habit that occurs just before I stumble into the kitchen to make my coffee. By chance, the tube was set to NBC, where the plastic Today show commentators were talking about a plane that had crashed into the World Trade Center. So I never changed the channel. I just stood there, eyelids glued apart, and watched as plane number two glided into the south tower, and into history.

I just stood there, I don't know for how long. Eventually I turned around, made the coffee, and listened to the aghast commentary of the NBC crew. I don't remember now what it was triggered my next verbal outburst, whether it was Katie Couric reporting the government saying it was Osama bin Laden who was behind the attacks, or some vaguer speculation about Arab terrorists.

I only know I turned around, stalked into the living room, and then with the most certain self-assured vehemence I have ever shown in my life, started bellowing: "No way! No freaking way!"

I knew then, right then and there, that 9/11 was an inside job. That this was not the work of Arab terrorists, unless they played some minor diversionary role in a complex and deliberately confusing cast of characters. That this was done at the behest of the people who control our lives, who wanted to create a stultifying example that would be branded into the minds of the muddled masses in order to create a war mentality to justify their criminal intent to make war on the whole world, and make a handsome profit from it.

Nothing I have seen, heard, or read since has caused me to feel even the merest shadow of a doubt about what I felt at that moment. All those millions of words, mostly written by people who have no stake in anything media-related or politically purposeful, have only reinforced my conviction.

The highest, most important leaders in our land, and other countries as well, were behind the scheme to kill thousands of American citizens in order to justify an intensified assault on the oil-producing countries of the Middle East and elsewhere. Time and the telling of hundreds of more lies have only deepened my conviction, and proved it far beyond a reasonable doubt. The plans for these wars were drawn up BEFORE 9/11, and the lies utilized to execute them have become well-established in the public eye, at least for those interested enough to take a look.

So I began to write about it, firing thought cannons into cyberspace that were read by thousands of readers but which had little or no effect on the world at large. Gathering every fact I could from each mind who cared to comment on these matters, I soon amassed an array of speculative evidence from a variety of researchers that convincingly confirmed my initial emotional impressions.
However, it wasn't long before I dared verbally venture into these matters when I ran afoul of people with different opinions as to what actually happened.

And as it stands today, the 9/11 skeptics movement is in total shambles, with the dominant personalities far more interested in pushing their own personal view of things and advancing their own interests than they are in convincing the public they need to focus on the American criminal politicians who were behind the whole caper in the first place.

And this is a truly tragic twist, because now that the American public, weary from the continued flimsiness of government lies about current events, is ready to confront the biggest lie of them all - 9/11 - the 9/11 skeptics movement has deteriorated into trivial bickering that serves no purpose at all other than reveal the shallow, selfish motives of many of its participants.

I receive about 2,000 e-mails per week, most from people who are intensely interested in solving this problem. One recent one from the indefatigable story forwarder Sally Chrisinis in Texas contained a link to a 2004 story by Gerard Holmgren that I consider the single best overall roundup of what really happened on 9/11 that I have ever read, titled "Manufactured Terrorism: The Truth About Sept. 11."

Holmgren, an award-winning, Australian blues guitarist, has distinguished himself as the 9/11 researcher with probably more amazing discoveries than anyone else (especially that two of the supposedly fatal flights on 9/11 never showed up in FAA records, and that the passenger lists are riddled with inconsistencies).

He is also at the center of, and chief spokesman for, the single issue that most divides the 9/11 skeptics movement - the assertion that there were no planes, or at least no passenger jetliners - used in the attacks.

Just for a moment, savor this enigma. The best researcher says there were no planes. Or, more precisely, not the planes we thought we saw.

Try to view this as a perfect parallel to the overall 9/11 dilemma. A majority of Americans, trapped as they are in media manufactured images for the entirety of their lives, simply cannot bring themselves to believe that their elected officials could ever even contemplate such a dastardly deed, never mind actually commit it.

So imagine how hard it would be to convince the public, which did not want to believe their leaders killed 3,000 of their own people, that on top of that, the whole charade was pulled off without the planes we thought we saw. This was always my chief objection to the no-plane theory. It would be met by guffaws (and has been). No one would believe it. Hell, it was hard enough to try and get people to believe their own government would actually do this (even though I never found it hard to believe, because there are simply too many similar historical precedents of self-inflicted wounds to justify aggression).

But then, from various nooks and crannies of the Internet, reality began to intrude.

First, there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon, except a couple of apparently seeded parts that may or may not have matched up to the specifications of the plane that was supposed to have hit it. Add on top of this the government's assertion that the DNA of each passenger was later identified after a fire that was so blazingly hot that it vaporized an entire jetliner into complete invisibility. And on top of that, remember that this was the plane that supposedly flew for an hour and 40 minutes in the most secure airspace in the world without being intercepted by our crack Air Force. And finally there was the impossible aerobatic maneuver the pilot of Flight 77 was supposed to have executed - a 270-degree diving turn at 600 mph - that not even Neil Armstrong could have pulled off, and this was done by a guy, a wacked-out Arab terrorist named Hani Hanjour, who from all reports had trouble driving a car.

So you begin to suspect there's something wrong with the Pentagon story (to say the least).

OK, then you consider the crash in Pennsylvania, on which the passengers supposedly staged a valiant attempt to wrest control of the plane from hijackers, and in the ensuing fight, the plane crashed to the ground. It isn't so much the fact that no one actually saw this plane crash, or that there was something curiously anomalous about the wreckage, or that many witnesses recall seeing an unmarked white jet cruising around the area.

My pal Brad sent me an interesting timeline about Flight 93 that included the evocative phone calls Deena Burnett supposedly received from her husband Tom as he struggled with the dire situation fighting the hijackers aboard the doomed jetliner.

Just after 6 a.m. California time, Deena Burnett called 911 (the number, not the day) and said she'd just received a cell phone call from her husband who was on a plane. Deena told the cops: "They just knifed a passenger and there are guns on the plane."

Seven minutes later, or so the story goes, Tom Burnett called Deena again. She says he said: "The guy they knifed is dead."

Greg Gordon's riveting account in the Sacramento Bee of the Burnetts' tragic morning with Tom furnishing inside details meticulously enunciated to verify the government's story, will bring tears to your eyes. It did to mine.

And then you remember that this was a cellphone call, and the plane at that time was flying at 35,000 feet (and climbing to 41,000). And you remember the words of Professor A.K. Dewdney (among others), who has proved conclusively that cellphones don't work at that altitude. See, for example,

So you begin to suspect that there's something wrong with this Pennsylvania story, and think, hmm, deja vu all over again?

OK, then you begin to think back about the events in New York City, and you remember the famous Naudet video, which showed the first crash of the day, Flight 11 slamming into the north tower of the World Trade Center. It's a crappy video, all fuzzy and jerky, supposedly because the Naudet brothers caught it by serendipitous accident while filming a documentary that day about firefighters.

If you've done any research into these matters, you've watched the blown-up, slowed-down version of that footage over and over, and you can't escape the nagging feeling that that plane's wings are perpendicular to the fuselage - not swept back at an angle like those on a passenger jetliner. And you can't help but begin to wonder - what kind of plane was that? And you remember the initial reports of a small plane hitting the tower.

So you begin to think to there's something wrong with this North Tower story. And by now it's a familiar refrain.

When I put these three thoughts together, I am ready to believe Holmgren's story. If three of the crashes have been grotesquely misrepresented, there no way the fourth one could have happened as reported. If you think it could have, then you have never placed a bet in your entire life, and should never.

But what really nailed it for me was George Nelson, the retired Air Force colonel who recently wrote a story about airplane crashes in general. Nelson said there has never been an example of an airplane crash in which the plane could not be identified because of an innocuous item called replaceable time-change parts, small components in the vastly complex array of machinery necessary to get these big machines off the ground.

Each airplane has numerous time-change parts that are all recorded in their meticulously kept maintenance logs, and each of these parts has serial numbers that are logged in as well, hence providing a certifiable record of part with plane. Many of these parts are too small to be destroyed in a crash. I mean, even in the worst crashes, if a plane is reduced to rubble the size of say, silver dollars, some of these parts are even smaller than that, so they don't get further reduced in size. They turn up in a search of the wreckage, a serial number is found, and the plane is identified by the connection recorded in its maintenance log.

Every crash that has ever happened, Nelson asserts, has been identified in this manner. See

Except on 9/11. No replaceable part that could link the planes said to have crashed to a piece of rubble that was examined on that day has ever been found.

Nelson's conclusion? "The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised .... it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government." (And this guy's a retired colonel.)

At that point, planes or not, I was ready to believe Holmgren's tale (after years of arbitrarily denying it was true, because I just could not believe it).

But one formidable hurdle remained. The major image seared forever into the minds of every person on earth is the crash of what the government says was Flight 175 into the South Tower. We've seen it over and over. It is etched into our dreams.

Holmgren, along with his allies in film analysis, The Webfairy, Scott Loughery, Nico Haupt, Marcus Icke and the whole "no-plane" movement, continue to insist it was done electronically - that there were no planes - because of anomalies they have observed in the videos of the event.

I had occasion to converse with the Webfairy (Rosalee Grable) recently, and I told her I was ready to believe Holmgren's version of events, except for one thing - how do you explain so many different camera angles on that crash all recording essentially the same event, and how could eyewitnesses see it if it were all done with exotic film techniques?

This was the question that had always hung me up in this debate. Sure, most of us had only seen it on TV, but what about all those people who were running from the raining rubble - what had they seen? And what about the people in Queens who watched it on the Von Kleist video. And what were the suspicious Israelis filming from the New Jersey shore - only a video deception?

How could a hologram of jet crash been seen by so many people from so many different angles? I am no technical expert on these matters, but for all the reading I've done on the Internet these past three years, you'd think I would have run across the subject - since I've been looking for it.

Rosalee told me that Gerard and her friends no longer believe it was a hologram, and that they now believe it was all done in the ersatz movie studio of a flight simulator, and then that footage was somehow transmitted to the TV networks.

Holmgren responded forthrightly. "I can't give a definite answer. As with the Pentagon, all I can say for sure is what it was not. That is, it was not the "plane" which we see in the video. The illusory plane masks whatever it was."

So there it was again - the difficulty of the story. In all four events on 9/11, we can't figure out what happened, but the evidence that can be assembled indicates the official story is not true.

The dilemma of a difficult story that cannot be easily conveyed to the public is what made me reject it in the first place, but in the same way that people's attitudes ultimately have no bearing on the veracity of what they're saying, so the difficulties in comprehending a story have no relevance as to whether or not it's true.

Where I began this reconsideration of a contentious dispute was by remembering that you can't determine the veracity of information on the basis of someone's reputation. And the reputation of the no-planers is horrible. They have savaged everyone who dared question their version of events, and left a trail of bad feelings wherever they've gone.

They have intimidated many into frustrated silence with a constant barrage of cantankerous contentions, and a result have attracted all manner of derogatory adjectives, including from me. And yet, we continue to use their information - that two of the flights may never existed, that the passenger list info is very suspicious - in our pursuit of the truth. So perhaps some of us have been too harsh in dismissing them as disruptive. After all, this is a very emotional debate, and the future of the world DOES depend on its outcome.

This emotionalism has spilled over into other principle schisms within the 9/11 skeptics movement. In my clumsy attempts to try and deduce the real story, I've received some of it myself, with the controversial Phil Jayhan (who lately has been saying he is receiving messages from God) accusing me of taking money from the government as well as not caring about the people who died on 9/11.

More recently I have been swept into a public roasting by Holmgren and the no-plane gang of 9/11 personality Karl Schwarz in which neither side has exactly distinguished itself by polite debating tactics. The Holmgren gang has torched Schwarz for specific inaccuracies in his very public attempts to get New York state law enforcement officials to bring legal action against the government for wrongful deaths in the 9/11 attacks. But Schwarz has only feebly defended himself by using empty ad hominem threats against the no-planers, and his apparently inflated claims about himself and his "companies" have taken a major hit with the publication of his background on Portland Indymedia (Karl Schwarz: Unfortunate Son).

Again, the upshot of this nagfest was to only drive more people away from the movement, disgusted with the level of personal insults obscuring the merits of the discussion.

The same kind of high-intensity emotion has been embarrassingly evident among Internet radio listeners of late, as they have watched, with increasing confusion and incredulity, the continuing attacks of WING-TV against several of the best radio hosts on the web: Jeff Rense, Alex Jones, and Fintan Dunne.

Miffed that they have been snubbed by their more experienced and more accomplished broadcasting competitors, WING-TV operators Victor Thorn and Lisa Guliani have engaged an embarrassing juvenile tirade against three people who have perhaps brought more people to realistic political consciousness via Web radio than anybody else, especially with regard to 9/11.

So their so-called revealing exposés of Rense, Jones, and the Genesis Communications Network, are little more than sour grapes at not being able to crack the big time.

That some of their criticisms are valid are beside the point. That Jones is a bombastic and aggressive Texan with a keen sense of his own profitability doesn't diminish his many achievements in exposing many current events that need to be exposed. That Rense dabbles in arcane topics like UFOs doesn't negate the formidable political guests he's had on his show, nor does his continuing efforts to make clear the evils of Zionism are not perpetrated by all Jews nor all Christians.

That the owner of the Genesis network, Ted Anderson, makes money by selling gold doesn't make him an agent of the Illuminati. Fact is, Genesis, with Rense, Jones and Jack Blood leading the way, provides a news service to the American people that is unmatched for relevance across the media spectrum.

Which brings us to another point about Thorn. His little booklet titled "Christ Killers."

Thorn's decision to align himself with the hardcore Christian right opens him up to legitimate charges of anti-Semitism.

Now I know some of you must be laughing about me using that term, since I have been branded with it myself. Let me make this clear. Jews are human beings, just like everybody else. The fact that many - or even most - of them have chosen to believe the lies told in the Talmud that they are the Chosen are better than everybody is certainly despicable and ridiculous, but no worse than the way Catholics feel about themselves as the only true church, or Muslims as the only true religion, or Hindus being the fathers of us all. It's all hateful BS, and a movement among the Jews is growing that Zionism hurts them as much as it hurts everybody else.

So when I say somebody is anti-Semitic, you can count on it as being true, and not the same attempt at political intimidation as it is when used by fascist bozos like Abe Foxman, Jerry Falwell, or Richard Perle. [...]

This needless arguments are typical of what has happened to the 9/11 skeptics movement. It has been betrayed by people more interested in their own financial fortunes than in unearthing the truth.

The truth is that we all make mistakes, we all believe things that with further study we eventually learn are lies, and we all like to condescend to people who don't share our particular ideas about what is happening.

This is what I meant when I said at the beginning of this screed that honesty is a tricky business. By revealing all these petty grievances, I have probably retarded the search for 9/11 truth more than illuminated it, simply because of the number of people who have not read this story to this point, and abandoned it for some other activity they think is more rewarding.

But you don't solve a problem by skirting its most contentious aspects. We must muddle through them, no matter how complicated or enigmatic they become.

In the case with honesty and the truth, if you don't persevere, and seek it without involving your ego in its discovery, you'll never find it. So those who didn't stick around for the end of this story have missed the best part.


Agents provocateur? We can easily identify the shams posted by establishment shills such as Chertoff in Popular Mechanics, Jasper in the New American, and Shermer in Scientific American, or by other Zionist gatekeepers such as Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky who refuse to address central questions about 9/11, the Iraq war, and Israel's extermination of the Palestinians and infiltration of the U.S. government.

But inside the 9/11 skeptics movement itself I cannot tell if anyone is deliberately trying to deceive or obfuscate (except for Michael Elliott of, who has suddenly disappeared, leaving a trail of debts and broken promises).

What I do see is people pursuing their objectives so ardently (and I myself am not immune from this) that they castigate competing theories as government subterfuge. When combined with the frustration of trying to defog government smokescreens, and competing theories that disagree with their own, fireworks follow. And they don't help the movement. In fact, they play right into the hands of those who engineered the coverup.

The object of the 9/11 skeptics movement is not to gain personal fame and fortune, nor to disparage those who are not as expert as others in knowing all the trivial details of every aspect of the event.

It is perhaps a legitimate exercise to point out those who are deliberately trying to impede or distort a gathering of the facts. But identifying this activity must be weighed against the higher goal of inspiring a majority of Americans to recognize the capital crimes of their leaders. After all, even Mike Ruppert, before he revealed himself as an oil company shill, was of great value to the movement.

The object, ultimately, is to identify the true perpetrators of the greatest crime in American history, and perhaps on an even higher level, to prevent the world from being destroyed by rich and cunning white men who seek to profit from fomenting wars all over the world.

We need to stop the bickering, and press on in pursuit of the evidence, wherever it leads. Only then can we truly say we have led and are leading honest lives.
It all sounds so reasonable and rational, doesn't it? It is soothing and tells us that "we can just work all this out if we just stop quibbling." The Quibblers are the problem... shut them up, make them go away, let's just all get along!

The only problem is, such a view does not take into account either the activity of psychopaths or the specific revelations of Protocol 12. In short, if the Alternative Media and the 911 Truth Movement are, as we suspect most strongly, products of a wider program of socio-cultural shaping and control, all bets are off; there ain't gonna be any end to the quibbling! The knowledge of psychopathy and how it operates in any social system, along with the specific knowledge of COINTELPRO and how it operates (outlined for us quite nicely in Protocol 12) are the "unknown terms" that are not apparent on the surface, the knowledge of which is absolutely crucial to any possibility of success in dealing with the pressing issues that face us today. And John Kaminski was not joking when he said that 911 was "done at the behest of the people who control our lives, who wanted to create a stultifying example that would be branded into the minds of the muddled masses in order to create a war mentality to justify their criminal intent to make war on the whole world, and make a handsome profit from it."

So, let us accept it as a logical given, based on observation and knowledge of history, that COINTELPRO basically runs the Alternative Media and the 911 Truth Movement and that you are only going to get your truth in the ratio of about 400 lies to 1 truth.

Next item: as it turns out, John Kaminski was wrong about Rense, Jones and Fintan Dunne and had the grace to admit it as was discussed by Rixon Stewart:
Kaminski has some important points to make, particularly about Rense, whom this writer has had suspicions about for some time now. Having seen Rense post articles in which he had excised whole paragraphs with any reference to this website. And while Rense knows about historic, ground-breaking documents like Tomlinson's Affidavit on the murder of Princess Diana and Paul Wilcher's report on Waco, he has yet to post them. So one can't help wondering if Rense is not maybe a disinfo agent?

This was indeed the late, great Joe Vialls opinion, so one can't help but wonder. Kaminski wrote:
Joe Sorry this took so long. Been busy. You don't want to know. I was extremely disappointed about Rense. It almost seems like he contrived to get rid of me. A lot of people, including you, told me about him. That he wasn't to be trusted. That he slanted the news in a particular way. He certainly never had anything good to say about you.

A lot of this radio infighting I simply ascribed to the genre. Fintan Dunne did the same thing to me. Later, Daryl Bradford Smith, and his objection was about Rense and the UFOs. Then Rense did it. At the same time, many websites stopped running my stuff ...

Notice the increasing number of Jewish writers on Rense. And the number of times Rense and his cohorts on the Genesis radio network go out of their way to either conceal or soft-pedal the impact of Jews on the world. Sure, Rense publishes all these polemics against Zionists. But Zionist is a confusing term, since so many so-called Christian dupes label themselves Zionists. My definition of Zionist is anyone who supports all these Jewish crimes in Israel and around the world. Rense pretends to be fighting this menace. Yet only so far. Hiding behind the disingenuous prattle of those who attempt to deflect and disinform those who might learn about how Jewish influence is a form of social parasitism that destabilizes and destroys any society it takes hold in - because that is its objective.

Rense's mission seems to be to appear as a critic of Israel, Zionists and Jews, but really not to ever get to the root of the problem, which is undue and irresponsible Jewish influence destroying the very fabric of every society it takes control of. That's what we're facing, and for every story Rense runs on the subject, by Makow or whomever else, we are that much further from being able to discern the root problem, because Rense's distractors come up with so many clever diversions that very few people actually understand the ruse.
Since we have broached the subject, there is something about the whole Jewish question that has been bugging me for awhile and I'm going to digress a moment on that.

I think that the holocaust denial stuff is being set up as a major tar baby.

I also think that the truly SINCERE members of the Alternative Media and 9/11 Truth movement should join together and concentrate on ONE thing: the weak link in all of it, (which would, inevitably, include any Zionist manipulations), and that is concentrating on the CRIMINAL aspect of 911, that it was a CRIME and we need to force the issue of an independent FORENSIC investigation that is REALLY independent and thorough and bring the criminals to trial.

What forcing that single issue will accomplish is this: in the course of investigating the crime as it should be investigated - forensically with recognized experts that can be proven to be independent (and this will have to be really forced) and bringing the criminals to trial, ALL ELSE will be exposed.

Right now, going after anything else, even writing endless articles about how MOSSAD "dunnit" and about AIPAC and the Zionist Lobby, and whether or not the Holocaust was a Jewish thing, or how many Jews did or did not die, or whether or not there were gas chambers, and on and on and on, is just a distraction and a trap. People like Farrell and Judy Andreas are setting up all these tar babies everywhere they go.

This is what clued me in: watching the actions of those that are pretty well exposed as "agents" whether conscious or not.

Look at Kaminski. Nobody takes him seriously anymore because of his total focus on the Jewish issue, his almost rabid and bull doggish - and yes, even xenophobic - carryings on about Jews.

Of COURSE we all know that the whole monotheistic religion thing is about the nastiest fraud that has ever been pulled on humanity! God knows, I've researched it enough and written enough about it.

But what I am seeing is a very clever maneuver.

I think that everyone with two firing neurons knows that MOSSAD dunnit, but the problem is getting that to fly with enough people from the masses of America (and the support of other countries, by the way), who would have to be backing a REAL 9/11 investigation as well as monitoring it. You just AIN'T gonna get that support from people who have been brainwashed by the Holocaust Industry propaganda if you go in with your guns firing on the Jews.

Take that to the bank.

So, if what we really want is to "get the criminals," whoever they may be, (and we have a pretty good idea who will be exposed here), then the way to do it is to go after the "perpetrators of 9/11 and just leave it at that. Let the actual investigation, the actual trials reveal them to the public eye in a natural, incremental way.

Remember that the World Public have been exposed to 20 or more years of heavy duty guilt programming on that. Yeah, we know that the people with guts and the ability to go after the truth no matter what it might be can face this truth and deal with it. But have a heart for the average person WHOSE SUPPORT YOU NEED. They just can't go there YET.

It's obvious that any sincere 9/11 researcher, writer, whatever, ends up shooting themselves in the foot when they go there. That's an observed fact.

Yeah, it's WRONG that people can't research and discuss this; it's WRONG that they have arrested Irving and the others; it's downright criminal. But there are so many other wrong things they are doing, like killing women and children in Palestine and Iraq, and the U.S. and about everywhere else that you can write or rant until the end of time and never count them all.

So we have to think strategically. We have to find the weak link and go for that.

Stop and think about what we see in the broad overview of the whole situation: we see that Mossad was likely the mastermind - heck, writing that article about Mossad and Moving Companies is what got me targeted by Rense. He invited me on his show and simultaneously launched a smear campaign about me. And what Rense tried to bait me into doing on his show was "going after the Jews."

Now, it seems that Kaminski has been baited and took the bait... Look where he is now. (And in my opinion, John Kaminski is one of the truly sincere people who really understands the big picture of what humanity is currently facing. He's learning some of the same lessons we have already learned about psychopaths and their ilk. We only hope that he survives and emerges stronger and more focused than ever.)

What we see in the broad overview is that the key issue of the criminal act, that a CRIME was committed, that it is an obvious crime, that it is a crime that COULD be prosecuted if we could focus on it, has been completely diverted by the "The Jews did it, so let's just go after everything Jewish" thing.

The very fact that Rense continuously and repeatedly supports Zundel and Holocaust revisionism tells us that this is what they WANT people to go for... this is the BAIT. After all, this is what Rense is "on about" too.

It's all to make people look bad in the eyes of the wider audience - the masses of Americans who don't have the stomach to go against their own programming - not to mention the global audience with similar programming.

Even if the alternative news readers know the score, what we really need is wider base of support that is bigger than the online alternative/conspiracy community: we need the support of regular people who can - at least - grok the fact that a crime has been committed on 911 and it has been covered up. We will lose that support by hanging out with the holocaust revisionist people even if we think that they could be right.

Another really spooky question is this: What if the stuff the Holocaust Reviz people are promoting is also falsified to be a tarbaby? Did anybody ever think of that? Geeze, what a trap that would be.

And that is not impossible considering the resources and power of those seeking to control the world.

We gotta remember that we are dealing with very powerful criminals here with unlimited resources and it is NOT a game. Believe me, if anybody comes close to the truth, comes close to getting a following, they are gonna be smeared, marginalized, have every aspect of their ability to get the word out hampered in every way (and we know, we have lived with this crap for years now), and it is going to be done in such a way as to keep the hands of the PTB clean, as well as their "straw man opposition."

But, let's go back to what Kaminski was initially saying about Rense, Jones, Dunne etc:
several of the best radio hosts on the web: Jeff Rense, Alex Jones, and Fintan Dunne.

... Victor Thorn and Lisa Guliani have engaged an embarrassing juvenile tirade against three people who have perhaps brought more people to realistic political consciousness via Web radio than anybody else, especially with regard to 9/11. ... So their so-called revealing exposés of Rense, Jones, and the Genesis Communications Network, are little more than sour grapes at not being able to crack the big time.

That some of their criticisms are valid are beside the point. ...

That the owner of the Genesis network, Ted Anderson, makes money by selling gold doesn't make him an agent of the Illuminati. Fact is, Genesis, with Rense, Jones and Jack Blood leading the way, provides a news service to the American people that is unmatched for relevance across the media spectrum.
And then, after he was vectored, side-lined and taken out of the game, he wrote:
I was extremely disappointed about Rense. It almost seems like he contrived to get rid of me. A lot of people, including you, told me about him. That he wasn't to be trusted. That he slanted the news in a particular way. He certainly never had anything good to say about you.

A lot of this radio infighting I simply ascribed to the genre. Fintan Dunne did the same thing to me. Later, Daryl Bradford Smith, and his objection was about Rense and the UFOs. Then Rense did it. At the same time, many websites stopped running my stuff ...
See the picture yet? If they can't co-opt a person, they DESTROY them one way or another. And in the end, something in John Kaminski resisted being co-opted.

Now, here's another perspective from a pro-Alex Jones person who, despite noticing his far right agenda, still thinks he is okay because he gets publicity. That's pretty much what John Kaminski was saying, isn't it?
I appreciate your recent articles about questionable trends in alt journalism, but I wanted to make a few comments. I think this is a very important discussion.

First of all, I think we can safely assume that the Pentagon has infiltrated alt news, and likely has been part of this phenomenon over the years (My speculation: I think Doug Thompson and Rense were disinfo purveyors from the start, like Art Bell.) Integrity and sanity demand that we must hold each other accountable to very high standards of journalism, especially confronting trends that reflect censorship and poorly sourced information.

That said, we may also speculate that a major way that the government can diminish public opinion on the very real and true information provided by these alt news sites, is to plant information that makes the reporting/morals/importance of the work questionable. I think that much of this post-Thompson- dissappointment 'disinfo' hooplah has been planted to discredit alt media sources, and more importantly, to get us questioning ourselves.

I find it incredibly significant that Alex Jones is being lumped in with Rense and Doug Thompson, when he has made GREAT LEAPS and BOUNDS in getting the 911 truth out there recently (Doug Thompson is being criticized for recently DISMISSING 911 Truth, let's not forget). Alex Jones made a serious splash on CNN last month with his Charlie Sheen interview, and he represented the movement well enough to get more than a few people sweating in Washington, I'm sure.

Now take someone like Kaminsky, (sic) who propagates information that supports NWO research, 911 truth, and antiwar sentiments, but has VERY questionable racist slants on EVERYTHING. I regularly view political forums, and it has been OBVIOUS for months that there is a propaganda effort to foment anti-semitism within the antiwar/anti-NWO movement, likely in order to push wider public opinion away from alt media and forums, and even to paint them as a potential threat (maybe to justify internet censorship by Bush in the future? More speculation, I guess we'll see.)

I'm no apologist for Alex Jones, I don't visit his site anymore (usually). I'm a lesbian, and he's posted more than a few articles on the 'NWO homosexual agenda', which is an oxymoron if you ask me, and it is highly offensive (sexual shame is a super-tool of the elites, always has been, always will be). Jones may be a reactionary, he may be a catastrophist, and he may be full of himself, but he's no 911 cover-up agent. More importantly, he is one of the only alt broadcasters to get time on a MSM forum to make ANY points about the 911 cover-up, and to make them in a coherent and hard to counter way.

The last point I'd like to make is the questionable nature of your source information, Victor Thorn and Julia Gulani. I've never seen his site before (doesn't necessarily mean anything), and the archives section is not functioning (hmm, convenient?), so I don't know the extent of his research, ideology, or history.

I find it interesting that a Google search on his name comes up with an article by Michael Ruppert from October 2004, basically countering a pointed character assassination and answering 10 VERY loaded questions Thorn presented to him. The piece speaks for itself, especially in regards to the behaviour of Mr. Thorn. Mr. Thorn's questions are obviously loaded, poorly researched, and obviously SPUN in the ways we've come to expect from the mainstream media. Since when is it acceptable for an 'alt journalist' to repeatedly attack MULTIPLE other alt journalists in a spun, manipulated way in an effort to discredit them, when he supposedly fights for the same cause? Since when is this even logical? This is divisiveness, pure and simple, and it's pure gold to the elites, because it keeps us from uniting against them. The link to the above mentioned article is here. I not only suggest you read it, but you should put the link nearby the Thorn piece as a counter-argument.

I know, this e-mail has probably already been deleted, but I hope you hear me out, I hope you value what your readership sees when they visit your site. I assume from the get-go that any alt site, including truthseeker, may be a conscious purveyor of disinfo propoganda, which is why I think about everything I read, and research the sources.

When I've been to a site that has repeatedly made me question it's objectives and it's objectivity, I delete it the URL from my favorites and move on. I enjoy your site thus far, but you're now teetering on my edge of acceptance, for what it's worth.

Post a link to the Ruppert peice, or at least identify some of Thorn's questionable history, and prove me wrong. I'd be ecstatic if I were.

What this person isn't getting is the true nature and scope of the problem, that the whole 911 Truth Movement was probably created by the Pentagon or related elements exactly as described in Protocol 12. It's clear that this writer, while making what seem to be responsible points, really doesn't like the idea of COINTELPRO infiltration even if, at the very beginning, she says "First of all, I think we can safely assume that the Pentagon has infiltrated alt news, and likely has been part of this phenomenon over the years..." When it comes down to the nitty gritty of realizing that the most popular and visible alternative news gurus could be part of that Pentagon infiltration, she just can't go there. She does say that she considers that any site could possibly be disinfo and she checks the sources, but it doesn't appear that she checks them very deeply or she wouldn't be defending Alex Jones and Mike Ruppert. Also notice that her thrust is to "identify some of Thorn's questionable history."

Since Thorn isn't leading the charge to "give up on 911" as Ruppert has, that's irrelevant. For a bit more on Ruppert, have a look at : Ruppert and Hopsicker Co-Opting the 9-11 Truth Movement Or Exposing the Big Con - Lies and Disinformation At The End Of Civilisation As We Know It
Now, let me add that while John Kaminski was coming to his slow realization that Rense, Jones and Dunne weren't what they were cracked up to be, after he had realized the depth and breadth of the betrayal and how all the useful and helpful things that different COINTELPRO types are doing are just bait exactly as described in Protocol 12, he and I were corresponding about these matters. I was trying to avoid saying too much other than to just keep pointing to COINTELPRO as the template and psychopathy as the substratum. It was during these conversations that John told me that he had cancelled a trip to visit with us because Rense and his friend Jay Weidner had warned him that Ark and I are "CIA assets" or whatever. Jay Weidner and Vincent Bridges are well known to us having begun to defame us right about the same time as the events of 911 began to unfold and long before I ever even thought of beginning to compile a record of the political manipulations and news in my Signs of the Times pages. Frankly, I never intended for it to be a political forum. I just figured that anyone interested in esoteric work would be interested in the "signs" all around us that things were not quite as they seemed.

Well, as I mentioned above, it's pretty easy for anyone to say "I'm not" this or that, and it really doesn't mean anything. A psychopath can say exactly that and say it far more convincingly than any normal person. They can also get all their deviant buddies to say nice things about them and it can all be lies. More than that, the integrated defamation activity of COINTELPRO makes it almost impossible to evaluate anybody by their "reputation." After all, another of the lessons we learned from the 401 prophets was that the easiest way to avoid truth is to assassinate either the speaker or his character.

And so it is that the primary problem that I see the 911 Truth Movement and the Alternative Media struggling with today is precisely delineated by psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski: it is an almost total lack of adequate psychological knowledge. This is where it really comes home to us in a hard way that lack of good and accurate psychological knowledge is a severe handicap - and it could cost us our lives.

I know I beat the drum about psychopathy a lot and some people say, "yeah, he's probably a psychopath" and yada yada... but they don't seem to be really grokking this problem and understanding the seriousness of it. I told John Kaminski about it for months and he still got caught in the web.

So we are back again to our problem: how to tell? Who to trust?? We are in one heck of a predicament, aren't we? We are caught in the trap of the Cult of the Plausible Lie.
"Never ascribe to malice those things which may be explained by stupidity." That is an important phrase, and a necessary one; it keeps people from being paranoid. However, it has a corollary most people don't know: "One MAY ascribe to malice those things which stupidity cannot explain."

Robert Canup
Unfortunately, after so long a time of being subjected to lies and disinformation, the likelihood of society being able to overcome the social and cultural programming is difficult, but not impossible. And that is where things like COINTELPRO come into play: psyops agents are masters of triggering emotional programs that put people back to sleep. As a student on the subject, Robert Canup, has said, 99% of all of the problems confronting mankind can be traced to a single cause: the problem of the plausible lie. And the plausible lie is what COINTELPRO is all about.

Plausible lies are monstrous things propagated by evil people for the express purpose of deceiving good people into doing the will of those who do not have their best interests at heart. It's that simple. The most powerful of these lies are so plausible that nobody even dreams about questioning their validity.

Now, even though I know I am little more than a David against the Goliath of the well-funded arms of the National Security State, such as the many diverse and often contradictory sources of information and disinformation, including the mainstream media, many alternative media sources, so-called "Truth seeking groups" of all kinds, so-called New Age and Alternative writers and Impresarios of all shapes and sizes, (most of whom are COINTELPRO bogus organizations), I will continue to point out what can be observed if your eyes are open and your neurons are firing, and what can be asserted with some certainty based on collections of evidence, both material and circumstantial. Having said that, let me ask this: If there is such a thing as a plausible lie, is it not also possible that there might be such a thing as an implausible truth?

Learning about evil in our society, how it operates on the macro-social scale, is considered by many to be "unpleasant." They don't want to go there. It is too disturbing and even frightening. More than that, talking about these things as I am here is not familiar. To talk about evil as though it were a REAL concept is something we have been programmed to NOT do! As psychologist George Simon says:
...[W]e've been pre-programmed to believe that people only exhibit problem behaviors when they're "troubled" inside or anxious about something. We've also been taught that people aggress only when they're attacked in some way. So, even when our gut tells us that somebody is attacking us and for no good reason, we don't readily accept the notion. We usually start to wonder what's bothering the person so badly "underneath it all" that's making them act in such a disturbing way. We may even wonder what we may have said or done that "threatened" them. We almost never think that they might be fighting simply to get something, have their way, or gain the upper hand. So, instead of seeing them as merely fighting, we view them as primarily hurting in some way. [...]

The legacy of Sigmund Freud's work has a lot to do with this. Freud's theories (and the theories of others who built upon his work) heavily influenced the psychology of personality for a long time. Elements of the classical theories of personality found their way into many disciplines other than psychology as well as into many of our social institutions and enterprises. [...]

The malignant impact of overgeneralizing Freud's observations about a small group of overly inhibited individuals into a broad set of assumptions about the causes of psychological ill-health in everyone cannot be overstated.[...]

We need a completely different theoretical framework if we are to truly understand, deal with, and treat the kinds of people who fight too much as opposed to those who cower or "run" too much. [George K. Simon, Jr., "In Sheep's Clothing"]
We clearly need to study this problem of macro-social evil in our world in a systematic and scientific way. And we need to get over the idea that thinking only good thoughts, thinking about happy and "nice" things is the way to good psychological health.
If physicians behaved like ethicists and failed to study diseases because they were only interested in studying questions of health, there would be no such thing as modern medicine. [...] Physicians were correct in their emphasis on studying disease above all in order to discover the causes and biological properties of illnesses, and then to understand the pathodynamics of their courses. A comprehension of the nature of a disease, and the course it runs, after all, enables the proper curative means to be elaborated and employed.[...]

The question thus arises: could some analogous modus operandi not be used to study the causes and genesis of other kinds of evil scourging human individuals, families, societies? Experience has taught the author that evil is similar to disease in nature, although possibly more complex and elusive to our understanding. [...]

Considerable moral, intellectual, and practical advantages can be gleaned from an understanding of the genesis of Evil thanks to the objectivity required to study it dispassionately. The human heritage of ethics is not destroyed by taking such an approach: it is actually strengthened because the scientific method can be utilized to confirm the basic values of moral teachings.

Understanding the nature of macro-social pathology helps us to find a healthy attitude and thus protects our minds from being controlled or poisoned by the diseased contents and influence of their propaganda.

We can only conquer this huge, contagious social cancer if we comprehend its essence and its etiological causes.

Such an understanding of the nature of the phenomena leads to the logical conclusion that the measures for healing and reordering the world today should be completely different from the ones heretofore used for solving international conflicts. It is also true that, merely having the knowledge and awareness of the phenomena of the genesis of macro-social Evil can begin healing individual humans and help their minds regain harmony. [Andrew Lobaczewski, Ph.D. Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes]
Now, let me recommend new readers to take a look at my post on "How to Spot a COINTELPRO Agent." Keep in mind that the booklet I am quoting from there was compiled by activists from earlier days that had direct experiences where they were able to see only afterward how they had been duped and sidelined. My grandmother always said: "A smart man learns from his mistakes; a genius learns from the mistakes of others." In the case of COINTELPRO, some of those activists were smart, but not geniuses. Most of them got "taken out", and some of them literally had their lives completely destroyed because they were sincere and stubborn. The material in that booklet is priceless today because those who compiled it paid a high price to learn those things. Let's try to be geniuses here.

As Robert Canup writes, we face a particular, even monstrous, problem in our world: that most of what we know or think we know is based on plausible lies. A person who is sincere and speaks the truth really has almost no chance against a plausible liar. Yes, I know that goes against everything we have been taught from childhood in the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave," but it is all too sadly true. We have been taught that "the Truth will always win" and that "anybody who believes a lie about you wasn't your friend to begin with", and a whole host of other platitudes that actually would work in a different world: a world run by people who tell the truth!

But since our world is run by people who lie for a living, you might expect that they have set things up so that liars will always win. And that is, oh so sadly, the case.
"Our culture agrees on the signs of lying. Ask anyone how to tell if someone is lying and they will tell you that they can tell by "lack of eye contact, nervous shifting, or picking at one's clothes." Psychologist Anna Salter writes with dry humor: "This perception is so widespread I have had the fantasy that, immediately upon birth, nurses must take newborns and whisper in their ears, "Eye contact. It's a sign of truthfulness." [Anna C. Salter, Ph.D.]
The problem is, if there is a psychopath - or those with related characteropathies - who doesn't know hot to keep good eye contact when lying, they haven't been born. Eye contact is "universally known" to be a sign of truth-telling. The problem is liars will fake anything that it is possible to fake, so in reality, eye contact is absolutely NOT a sign of truth telling.

This is an issue that will never die. It seems impossible to convince people that private behavior cannot be predicted from public behavior. Kind, nonviolent individuals behave well in public, but so do predators, rapists, murderers, pedophiles and COINTELPRO agents who help to shape the culture in which we live. No, they weren't always called COINTELPRO, but the principle is the same. It has been used since time immemorial.

The earliest written records we have are of "clappers" in the audiences of theaters in ancient Greece. What do you think the term "Greek Chorus" means? We have exactly that in the present day in the form of the mainstream media. Did you think that, with the power of the internet to reach millions of people that the "powers that be" would have ignored the necessity of installing a "Greek Chorus" on the net?

"The chorus offered background and summary information to help the audience follow the performance, commented on main themes, and showed how an ideal audience might react to the drama as it was presented. They also represent the general populace of any particular story." Discussion boards are ideal formats for "Greek Choruses" as they can be vectored to "show how the ideal audience ought to react," and to "represent the general populace." In this way, the illusion can be created of a concensus when, in fact, such a concensus may not exist.

Richard Dolan has pointed out that those at the top will ALWAYS take whatever measures necessary to stay at the top, and when knowledge is power, that means that they will make sure that they are in control of what people know or think they know.

The sad fact is that as a society gets larger and more competitive, individuals become more anonymous and more Machiavellian. Social stratification and segregation leads to feelings of inferiority, pessimism and depression among the have-nots, and this promotes the use of "cheating strategies" in life which then makes the environment more adaptive for psychopathy in general. Such individuals may begin their lives in the lower socio-economic levels, but they often rise to the top.

Psychopathic behavior seems to be on the rise because of the very nature of American capitalistic society. The great hustlers, charmers, and self-promoters in the sales fields are perfect examples of where the psychopath can thrive. The entertainment industry, the sports industry, the corporate world in a Capitalistic system, are all areas where psychopaths naturally rise to the top.

Psychopaths seek power over others, it's that simple, and they gravitate to any field where there is power: medicine, law, industry, politics. It has always been that way; this is nothing new. Indeed, they comprise a very small segment of the population with an extremely large influence. It is due to this influence and the plausible lie that they can magnetize normal, decent people to follow them. They can make social conditions bad so that people feel oppressed and abused, and then they can easily blame it on someone else and agitate the people to go after and kill others based on such lies. Machiavelli discussed this sort of system plainly and openly and it has been the system of power since Cain killed Abel.

So, consider the idea that the ideas behind our social and cultural systems - including the legal system - were created by people whose agenda was to control society so that they could stay on top. And think about all the many ways they might go about doing that.

These are the same people who set up the legal system so that people would "get what they deserved"

Now, just think about that for a moment.

Imagine that you are a person at the top of the heap who knows that if you really set up a system where people got what they really deserved, you, yourself, would be instantly replaced - out the door in an instant! And so, if you are not just intent on staying on top and holding power, but cunning also, you will do everything in your power to insure that you and your kind are in charge of setting up that system, and that you remain in charge of it. You would make certain that evil was blended into the social and cultural concepts so seamlessly that nobody would ever notice.

And that is, quite literally, what happened. The individuals "at the top of the heap," who had gotten there by being the most vile and rapacious, then set about figuring out ways to deceive the masses all the while keeping their favor and adulation. They knew they had to make laws to keep order, and they knew they had to make those laws seem fair and reasonable to the masses of people or they would lose control. Losing control was the thing to be feared as anyone who has read The Prince by Machiavelli realizes.

And so, Machiavellian manipulators at the top of the heap were deeply involved in the formation of our cultural and social norms, including our legal system.

In the earliest days of this "legal system" there was a form of "justice" called "trial by ordeal". An example of trial by ordeal was holding a red hot iron to a defendant's tongue. The plausible lie used to justify this behavior was: if the defendant was telling a lie they would have a dry mouth and would be burned by the iron - while a truthful person would have a moist mouth and would be protected.

The fact is a NORMAL person who is telling the truth would most definitely have a dry mouth from fear, while a psychopath, who is incapable of feeling fear, would be the one with the moist mouth!!!

Now, just think about that for a few minutes.

(You might want to read my article on Ponerology and other articles on psychopathy, which quote extensively from several clinical psychologists on the subject of psychopathy just to get a real handle on the issue we are facing.)

Now, our current legal system is descended from "trial by ordeal" - and really isn't much different though it is much cleverer and simply not as obviously evil as that one was. As Anna Salter said, if she was accused of a crime, she would rather have a good lawyer than be innocent. That is a truly sad statement on our reality.

The conditions of our world are designed to create the maximum chance that evil will prevail and the good people will be punished by being good and telling the truth.

Punishing normal, decent, good people involves more than just creating a social system that acts against them. The system is designed to insure that these good people are subjected to as much pain as possible for the simple fact of being good and honest. An obvious example of punishing the innocent may be found in the way the victim in a rape case is treated; their reputations are dragged through the dirt - all in the name of justice of course.

The system that controls our thinking is set up like the legal system. People are taught to assume that, in any conflict, one side is lying one way, and the other is lying the other way, and people can just form opinions about which side is telling the truth. They are taught that the truth will lie somewhere between two extremes.

That is a wonderfully plausible lie.

Canup suggests that, to see the evil behind that plausible lie, we must make a different assumption: let us assume that in such cases, one side is innocent, honest, and tells the truth. It is obvious that lying does an innocent defendant no good; what lie can he tell? If he is innocent, the only lie he can tell is to falsely confess "I did it."

On the other hand, lying is nothing but good for the liar. He can declare that "I didn't do it" and accuse another of doing it; all the while the innocent person is saying "I didn't do it" and is telling the truth.

The truth - when twisted by good liars, can always make an innocent person look bad - especially if he is honest and admits that he has faults. If someone is telling the simple truth, and the other side is lying through their teeth, the basic assumption that the truth lies between the testimony of the two sides always shifts the advantage to the lying side and away from the side telling the truth. Under most circumstances, this shift put together with the fact that the truth is going to also be twisted in such a way as to bring detriment to the innocent person, results in the advantage always resting in the hands of liars.

Canup points out that, even the simple act of giving testimony under oath is useless. If a person is a liar, swearing an oath means nothing to that person. However, swearing an oath acts strongly on a serious, truthful witness. Again, the advantage is placed on the side of the liars.

Proof is a familiar concept to those used to conventional logical thinking. However what passes for proof in cultural, social, and even legal terms often bears only a superficial resemblance to what would be considered proof by those who really use their minds to think.

For example: in formal mathematics, proof rules are established - postulates are set out and a structure is built based on the postulates and the theorem. Mathematical proof is pretty much inarguable: once a proof is accepted as true it is added to the pool of known truths.

In legal proof there is a set of rules and a theory which the prosecution presents, and attempts to prove the theory by clever argumentation rather than facts. Truth is not the objective. Getting other people to believe the theory IS the objective. However, the prosecution's theory is whatever the prosecutor believes that he can get away with based on what is known about the case, or what he can PREVENT from being known. What legal 'proof' does is serve as a structure for convincing a group of people of the guilt of a person, about whom they know nothing.

There is another significant difference: Mathematical proofs are judged by experts in the particular case who are free to study any and all information about the case. Legal 'proof' is judged by people who are guaranteed to be ignorant of the case, who are only allowed to study the information presented during the formal trial, and who are not even allowed to consult the texts for what the rules say.

Our culture is so permeated with this "legal argument" system that it extends into our daily experience: the one who is the slickest at using the structure for convincing a group of people of something, is the one who is believed. Very few people take the time to obtain hard facts by carefully studying any and all information about a situation.

What we see something here that is set up to deceive people by presenting a familiar structure which, upon examination, is a sham. And again, the advantages fall to the hands of the liars.

As Canup points out, in a courtroom, juries are prohibited by law from knowing anyone involved in the trial. If the defendant is a good person who is being set up and framed, people who know him well and who have had much opportunity to interact with him over a long period of time and observe him would have much more trouble accepting lies told about him. If the jurors knew the prosecutor and knew him to be a bullying liar, they might have trouble believing the lies he was telling. If the jurors knew the defendant, and know him to be a trouble making villain they might be more likely to convict him.

By the same standards, if a person who is guilty is accused of a crime that he DID commit, as we have seen above, it is all too easy to get off. Corrupt lawyers, ignorant "experts," and blind judges let guilty people literally get away with murder all the time.

But, none of the conditions conducive to finding the TRUTH prevail in a courtroom even if we have been brainwashed to think that we have the "best legal system in the world." It is not much different than "Trial by Ordeal," only the hot poker has been replaced by a system that works as effectively to the advantage of liars.

Here then we see the worst feature of the law: it is designed to make the world safe for evil people. In effect the law serves to take the horns away from the bulls, while leaving the lions their teeth and claws. Massive, overwhelming, advantage is placed in the hands of liars. Indeed, without the legal system insuring their safety, the world would be a much more difficult place for evil people.

Everyone knows somewhere deep inside, that there is something not right about our world. In fact, at the present moment, it could hardly be worse. But most people spend their lives avoiding that fact at all cost. The brutal truth is that the our social, cultural, and legal systems are all about making people helpless then hammering them without mercy - all the while involving everyone in the illusion that right prevails.

This is an issue that will never die. It seems impossible to convince people that private behavior cannot be predicted from public behavior. Kind, nonviolent individuals behave well in public, but so do predators, rapists, murderers, pedophiles, and COINTELPRO agents who operate largely to shape and vector "social norms," or "official culture" and to protect the perpatrators of 911.

The other day we watched V for Vendetta and, like many others, I thought it was a really good analogy of our present global situation even if it was presented as being "in the future." It not only conveys the idea of how the media is spun in a number of brilliant scenes, but it actually discussed the fact that words were being changed, that our language was being co-opted to the use of the psychopaths. (We'll come to the movie at the end, so hang in there.)

This is something of particular interest to me since words are really all we have to make connections via this medium. And words are what psychopaths use to manipulate people.

It is also interesting that Lobaczewski talks about this coopting of language which was observed as part of the Pathocratic process and how it was used in particularly devious ways to co-opt an ideological group that was "on the outside" or by the old definitions of words, benevolent, but which had been completely transformed in inner content as understood by the "insiders." Let's have a look:
An ideology of a secondarily ponerogenic association is formed by gradual adaptation of the primary ideology to functions and goals other than the original formative ones.

A certain kind of layering or schizophrenia of ideology takes place during the ponerization process.

The outer layer closest to the original content is used for the group's propaganda purposes, especially regarding the outside world, although it can in part also be used inside with regard to disbelieving lower-echelon members.

The second layer presents the elite with no problems of comprehension: it is more hermetic, generally composed by slipping a different meaning into the same names.

Since identical names signify different contents depending on the layer in question, understanding this "doubletalk" requires simultaneous fluency in both languages.

Average people succumb to the first layer's suggestive insinuations for a long time before they learn to understand the second one as well.

Anyone with certain psychological deviations, especially if he is wearing the mask of normality with which we are already familiar, immediately perceives the second layer to be attractive and significant; after all, it was built by people like him.

Comprehending this doubletalk is therefore a vexatious task, provoking quite understandable psychological resistance; this very duality of language, however, is a pathognomonic symptom indicating that the human union in question is touched by the ponerogenic process to an advanced degree.

The ideology of unions affected by such degeneration has certain constant factors regardless of their quality, quantity, or scope of action: namely, the motivations of a wronged group, radical righting of the wrong, and the higher values of the individuals who have joined the organization. These motivations facilitate sublimation of the feeling of being wronged and different, caused by one's own psychological failings, and appear to liberate the individual from the need to abide by uncomfortable moral principles.

In the world full of real injustice and human humiliation, making it conducive to the formation of an ideology containing the above elements, a union of its converts may easily succumb to degradation. When this happens, those people with a tendency to accept the better version of the ideology will tend to justify such ideological duality. [...]

The ideology of pathocracy is created by caricaturizing the original ideology of a social movement in a manner characteristic of that particular pathological phenomenon. [...]

A pathocracy's ideology changes its function, just as occurs with a mentally ill person's delusional system. It stops being a human conviction outlining methods of action and takes on other duties which are not openly defined. It becomes a disguising story concealing the new reality from people's critical consciousness, both inside and outside one's nation.

The first function - a conviction outlining methods of action - soon becomes ineffective for two reasons: on the one hand, reality exposes the methods of action as unworkable; on the other hand, the masses of common people notice the contemptuous attitude toward the ideology represented by the pathocrats themselves. For that reason, the main operational theater for the ideology consists of nations remaining outside the immediate ambit of the pathocracy, since that world tends to continue believing in ideologies. The ideology thus becomes the instrument for external action to a degree even greater than in the above-mentioned relationship between the disease and its delusional system.

Psychopaths are conscious of being different from normal people. That is why the "political system" inspired by their nature is able to conceal this awareness of being different. They wear a personal mask of sanity and know how to create a macrosocial mask of the same dissimulating nature.

When we observe the role of ideology in this macrosocial phenomenon, quite conscious of the existence of this specific awareness of the psychopath, we can then understand why ideology is relegated to a tool-like role: something useful in dealing with those other naive people and nations.

Pathocrats must nevertheless appreciate the function of ideology as being something essential in any ponerogenic group, especially in the macrosocial phenomenon which is their "homeland". This factor of awareness simultaneously constitutes a certain qualitative difference between the two above-mentioned relationships.

Pathocrats know that their real ideology is derived from their deviant natures, and treat the "other" - the masking ideology - with barely concealed contempt. And the common people eventually begin to perceive this as noted above.

Thus, a well-developed pathocratic system no longer has a clear and direct relationship to its original ideology, which it only keeps as its primary, traditional tool for action and masking.

For practical purposes of pathocratic expansion, other ideologies may be useful, even if they contradict the main one and heap moral denunciation upon it. However, these other ideologies must be used with care, refraining from official acknowledgement within environments wherein the original ideology can be made to appear too foreign, discredited, and useless.

The main ideology succumbs to symptomatic deformation, in keeping with the characteristic style of this very disease and with what has already been stated about the matter.

The names and official contents are kept, but another, completely different content is insinuated underneath, thus giving rise to the well known double talk phenomenon within which the same names have two meanings: one for initiates, one for everyone else. The latter is derived from the original ideology; the former has a specifically pathocratic meaning, something which is known not only to the pathocrats themselves, but also is learned by those people living under long-term subjection to their rule.

Doubletalk is only one of many symptoms.

Others are the specific facility for producing new names which have suggestive effects and are accepted virtually uncritically, in particular outside the immediate scope of such a system's rule.

We must thus point out the paramoralistic character and paranoidal qualities frequently contained within these names. The action of paralogisms and paramoralisms in this deformed ideology becomes comprehensible to us based on the information presented in Chapter IV. Anything which threatens pathocratic rule becomes deeply immoral. This also applies to the concept of forgiving the pathocrats themselves; it is extremely dangerous and thus "immoral".

We thus have the right to invent appropriate names which would indicate the nature of the phenomena as accurately as possible, in keeping with our recognition and respect for the laws of the scientific methodology and semantics. Such accurate terms will also serve to protect our minds from the suggestive effects of those other names and paralogisms, including the pathological material the latter contain. [...]

The development of familiarity with the phenomenon is accompanied by development of communicative language, by means of which society can stay informed and issue warnings of danger. A third language thus appears alongside the ideological doubletalk described above; in part, it borrows names used by the official ideology in their transformed modified meanings. In part, this language operates with words borrowed from still more lively circulating jokes. In spite of its strangeness, this language becomes a useful means of communication and plays a part in regenerating societal links.
I also want to add another part of Lobaczewski's book that relates specifically to the work of our research and discussion groups and all of those who have come to an awareness of psychopathy and its role on the current global stage.
The specific role of certain individuals during such times is worth pointing out; they participate in the discovery of the nature of this new reality and help others find the right path.

They have a normal nature but experienced an unfortunate childhood, being subjected very early to the domination of individuals with various psychological deviations, including pathological egotism and methods of terrorizing others.

The new rulership system strikes such people as a large scale societal multiplication of what they knew from personal experience.

From the very outset, such individuals saw this reality much more prosaically, immediately treating the ideology in accordance with the paralogistic stories well known to them, whose purpose was to cloak the bitter reality of their youthful experiences. They soon reach the truth, since the genesis and nature of evil are analogous irrespective of the social scale in which it appears.

Such people are rarely understood in happy societies, but they were invaluable then; their explanations and advice proved accurate and were transmitted to others joining the network of this apperceptive heritage.

However, their own suffering was doubled, since this was too much of a similar kind of abuse for one life to handle. They therefore nursed dreams of escaping into the freedom still existing in the outside world.

Finally, society sees the appearance of individuals who have collected exceptional intuitive perception and practical knowledge in the area of how pathocrats think and how such a system of rule operates. Some of them become so proficient in their deviant language and its idiomatics that they are able to use it, much like a foreign language they have learned well. Since they are able to decipher the rulership's intentions, such people then offer advice to people who are having trouble with the authorities. These advocates of the society of normal people play a irreplaceable role in the life of society.

The pathocrats, however, can never learn to think in normal human categories. At the same time, the inability to predict the reaction of normal people to such an authority also leads to the conclusion that the system is rigidly causative and lacking in the natural freedom of choice.
Now, let me bring this baby home. Going back to what I wrote at the beginning of this piece:
Many of you reading this blog are aware of the recent articles published on the Wing TV website regarding Jeff Rense, Alex Jones, Mike Ruppert, and other leaders of the so-called 911 Truth movement. Interestingly, instead of Rense, Jones and Ruppert responding intelligently to the issues raised, or responding at all, a strange third party defamation attack on Lisa Guliani began. Having been subjected to exactly the same type of Third Party Attack myself, I recognized it for what it was and immediately stood up with Lisa to point out that there was simply no excuse for that kind of filth being spewed about anyone under the guise of "free speech." Funny, "free speech" was the same justification given for spewing lies about me and my family. Now, because we defended Lisa and Victor, this defamation attack spread out to include our own discussion forum on numerous threads.
Yes indeed, I recognized the character assassination because I had experienced it. What a lot of people don't realize is that this sort of activity is just the "warm up." If you are normal, sincere, and really seeking the truth, it is going to happen to YOU eventually. The context may be different, and the degree may greater or lesser, but it will happen to you. And when it does, remember Martin Niemoller.:
There are several versions of the well-known statement attributed to the German anti-Nazi activist, Pastor Martin Niemöller. The following is said, by someone who heard him speak at Columbia Theological Seminary in Decautur GA in 1959 (or 1960), to be what he actually said:
In Germany they first came for the Communists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,

and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me -

and by that time no one was left to speak up.
What Martin Niemöller said appears in the Congressional Record, 14, October 1968, page 31636, as:
When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church - and there was nobody left to be concerned.
Well, it's the same thing when you are being attacked for speaking the truth and nobody comes to your defense.
Last night Ark and I were talking about this whole thing and he pointed out that if I was younger they would be saying the same things about me that they say about Lisa. And yeah, he was right. But since I'm older and obviously no one would mistake me for a street walker since I ain't got the looks, they go after me in a different way, accusing me of plagiarism, fraud, leading a cult, abusing my children, and so on. I've even been accused of plagiarizing my own autobiography!!!!! Figure that one out!!! Don't they think that if I had done that that all the other people I wrote about would have said something???


The whole thing is about CONSCIENCE: The ability to empathize, to see that something is wrong, that people are doing evil things to hurt another human being, and to stand up and say so and act in solidarity.

The PTB are able to pay people so that it looks like they have solidarity. They also attract deviants who are in solidarity with their pervert kind. We need to learn how to tell the difference!!

For so long, the deviants have inculcated normal human beings with those knee jerk programs like "if you can't say something nice..." "least said soonest mended..." "your friends will know the truth and if they believe the lies, they aren't your friends..." and all the stuff that is designed to keep us from sharing data that is crucial to our survival..

In fact, most human relationships are doomed from the start because of these kinds of programs...

And that's our whole society: programmed and set up for the convenience of hiding psychopaths ... so that normal human beings live their lives under the control of deviants.

What a racket.

Now, let me recommend the book "In Broad Daylight" to get a real sense of how psychopaths have prgrammed human society to not support and help each other when psychos go after them. It's a microcosm metaphor of the United States right now.

How bad does it have to get before conscience is awakened? Do they have to come after YOU? And how, then, will you feel when you didn't stand up for someone else?

I'm talking about the members of the so-called Patriot Movement, the 911 Truth Movement, etc. I KNOW that all of them know that what is being said about Lisa is not true. But they just look the other way like Kitty Genovese was being murdered...

And that is, in a sense, what it is: an attempted assassination of the soul. Anybody who is any any position to go after those Revereradio creeps and DOESN'T, hasn't got a soul. Period. That's you, Rense, Jones, Dunne and the whole damn lot of you! If I wasn't already convinced that you guys are paid government agents (since you, Rense, and your buddies Weidner and Bridges did the same absolutely unconscionable thing to me), your psychopathic associates and their activities would drive the point home. You are complicit by your silence.

For those readers who are persuaded, as Kaminski was, by psychopathic manipulation, that Lisa and Victor brought this on themselves, please go back and check the record, notice the DETAILS, and you will conclued (assuming you have a soul) that Lisa did nothing to deserve the kind of filth and degradation that has been heaped on her.

On this subject, let me quote one of our forum members:
I think the vast majority of people I have known tend to secretly admire psychopaths (not the violent sociopathic variety), when it is not them them that is the victim. Here in Greece especially, where the language structure reflects the psychology of the people in detail, the capacity to manipulate is equated with superior intelligence (survival intelligence).

I saw the same thing in the US, Europe and even Morocco. The predator is secretly admired. Many people who claim to have a conscience say that it is their "failing" and a "liability". Our society promotes psychopaths as successful, as superior, as examples of what Darwin was talkin' about.

A lot of people see empathy as counter-evolutionary and as a weakness or some kind of retardation. I have come to conclude that this conditioning goes very deep in human society. And I think psychopaths have a way of spreading an aura of intimidation, of sending subliminal signals to others like "don't bother me while I feed if you know what's good for you".

As I see it, psychopathic attacks are like the blast radius of a bomb. There is the focus upon the primary target, and there is a secondary radius of attack that amounts to subtle environmental intimidation to keep others from interfering.

The thing is that if a person has a soul there will be a clash between what the psychopath (and corresponding reinforcing social conditioning) outputs, and the dictates of conscience. That will generate a lot of dissonance in anyone with a soul worth mentioning. The test of soul strength is what that person does about the dissonance. What path do they choose to alleviate it?

In simple terms it amounts to how you are able to live with yourself. Who is your guide? Is it your soul or is it the psychopathic program? Sometimes there is nothing we can do without putting ourselves in danger, and hence out of capacity to be of assistence were we can be. Then we must accept the resulting dissonance, and alleviate it by forgiving ourselves. Even if we could not act, the choice was still a soul choice, and because of that forgiveness can come through objective perspective.

When it is not a soul choice, we damn ourselves into servitude to the psychopathic program. That is because the program never stops telling us what to do and how to act once we give it that first permission to do so. It keeps making demands, for its raison d'etre is to undermine our soul out of existence.

In the end we become no different than psychopaths ourselves. The only thing, in that situation, that would even hint that our soul still has an ounce of presence is the inner turmoil we would have to expend tremendous amounts of energy to suppress.

This is the way of all those who claimed to "just be following orders" when they perpetrated attrocities. Following orders, however, is not the only excuse people provide to hide their fear of being another of the psychopath's victims. In the case of the truth movement there is plenty of room for rationalization, which in the end does nothing but end up in a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" mentality regarding psychopaths.

It is a profound revelation to see just how much human society has been engineered by psychopaths down to the details we take for granted. And one need no go looking for conspiracies to observe this, because it is all-pervasive from the subtle to the most blatant domains of social behaviour.

The soul has been taken away from being a natural and quintessential motivating force into the domain of religion. It has become abstract, although it is something normally felt as strongly and undeniably as flesh when present. The true individual soul has been hobbled, and people are literally punishing for daring to bare its naked radiance. ...

The soul is not only anathema to the psychopath, but to all those Igor/Renfield secondaries that silently or blatantly support them through "following orders" and other rationalized justifications, and mostly through inaction.

Like many who have contracted a lethal virus they seem to be bent toward spreading it rather than curing the disease. And the greatest fallacy is the promotion that this is nothing but "human nature". How many stop to think that our many assumptions of human nature are based on psychopathic propaganda and conditioning? How many stop to think at all? I guess that pesky conscious/conscience hurts too much. [EsoQuest]
To finish off here, there are a couple of things from the previous Lobaczewski quotes that have been floating around in my head making connections. These are things that are "hopeful."

First notice this:
The development of familiarity with the phenomenon is accompanied by development of communicative language, by means of which society can stay informed and issue warnings of danger. A third language thus appears alongside the ideological doubletalk described above; in part, it borrows names used by the official ideology in their transformed modified meanings. In part, this language operates with words borrowed from still more lively circulating jokes. In spite of its strangeness, this language becomes a useful means of communication and plays a part in regenerating societal links.
And then this:
The specific role of certain individuals during such times is worth pointing out; they participate in the discovery of the nature of this new reality and help others find the right path.....

Finally, society sees the appearance of individuals who have collected exceptional intuitive perception and practical knowledge in the area of how pathocrats think and how such a system of rule operates.

Some of them become so proficient in their deviant language and its idiomatics that they are able to use it, much like a foreign language they have learned well. Since they are able to decipher the rulership's intentions, such people then offer advice to people who are having trouble with the authorities. These advocates of the society of normal people play a irreplaceable role in the life of society.
This reminded me of something else I have read recently. From the book: The Door Marked Summer by Michael Bentine (comedian, veteran Goon, scriptwriter and TV and radio personality whose interest in the "unusual" was widely known). He wrote:
It would seem that whenever a group of people, of scholarly and inspiring natures, gather together, drawn by the law of the mind 'like attracts like', the pool of their painfully acquired knowledge forms the basis for a heretical school of philosophy. (It is heresy, of course, only in the eyes of whatever Establishment has gained temporary control of the status quo.)
In another place in the same book he writes about his experiences during WW II. This is a VERY interesting passage and I think it has a lot to tell us under the present circumstances. Bentine was sent to complete an "intelligence course" and says:
The main purpose of this introductory, wide-spectrum course in Intensive Intelligence was to familiarize the newcomers with an attitude of mind - security. ... we were all amateurs, for only one or two of us had experience of clandestine activities. Poles, Czechs, Americans, French, Belgians, Norwegians, Dutch, Canadians, Australians and even a Peruvian (Bentine), we all had one thing in common - we hated the Nazis.

This was an all-service course - naval personnel, marines, army and air force - and one of the most important subjects was evasion and escape. ...

The difference between evasion and escape is simple. An evader is making his way out of enemy territory before being caught, whereas an escaper has already been in enemy hands, usually in a prisoner of war camp.

One of the chiefs of MI9 at the time of my introductions to its techniques was that gallant man Airey Neave... Many years later, I was to get to know him as a friend. His recent brutal murder by terrorists robbed Britain of one of the most fair-minded and brilliant men the country has known. [Are we surprised that he was murdered by "terr'ists?]

His colleagues at the Towers were Squadron-Leader Evans and Flight-Lieutenant Durnsford Smith - both of whom had made daring and brilliantly conceived escapes in WW I. I had read and re-read both their books before the war. Now I got to know them both, and they were kind enough to go deeply into their experiences with me. Both of them told me that they had relied heavily on their intuition, which their wartime experiences had sharpened for them. ...

I spent most of my time on that fascinating course listening to my wartime comrades from all over the world. All of them were older than I was, and many of them had escaped from the Germans Blitzkrieg across Europe and had made their way, by a multiplicity of escape routes, to Britain. They had come through Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Yugoslavia, Greece, France and Spain. Some had been wounded on their way to freedom. Many had killed to get through. All were determined to get back and destroy the Nazis. ...

All those members of the course who had either escaped from or evaded the Germans were aware that they had been aided or guided in some way during their adventures. The American airmen who had been shot down and evaded the Nazis called it "playing their hunches." The Poles, who were deeply religious, believed in guidance through prayer, and the spectrum of beliefs and opinions varied widely among the others. The sort of comments I heard were:
Something told me what to do.

I felt that something was guiding me.

I just felt that was the right thing to do, at that moment.

I could feel that I was being followed.

I knew it was now or never.

I prayed and my prayers were answered.

I saw my mother clearly - she told me to get up immediately and leave that house. A few minutes later the Germans were there!
All of them said that under the stress of the absolute need for survival their senses were heightened, even when weak from hunger, thirst and lack of sleep.

It was a revelation!

It is difficult to explain or even describe the feeling of comradeship that sprang up so quickly and readily in these circumstances, but anyone who has been part of a group or team of people under stress and who are working for the same cause will know what I mean.

The Poles, to whom I was posted taught me more about war and how to fight it than all the volumes of clever analysis ever written. It is simple really: You fight it twenty-four hours a day. You eat it, drink it, sleep it and devote your whole attention to it. Until it is over - and then you spend the rest of your life trying to make certain it doesn't happen again.

Of all our allies, the Polish people suffered the worst betrayal. We went to war because of the invasion of Poland by the Nazis in alliance with Soviet Russia. At the end of the war we let the Soviets take Poland without a murmur. Whatever ingenious political back-somersault one performs, there can be no justification for that last action. The Poles fought valiantly and died in the hundreds of thousands and they deserved better, especially at the hands of Britain.
I included that last bit that reveals Bentine's bitterness about politics because we all know that Britain had a different agenda in WW II and the agenda then seems to be intimately connected to the agenda today. What makes it all so sick is that they used the fierce and righteous anger of the average person to do their work for them.

Anyway, I have put in bold a few things that really stood out for me.

If you consider the "divine guidance" thing, you know that normal people have something that psychopaths cannot EVER have - access to something higher that can be accessed under stress. This item gives us (normal humans vis a vis psychopaths) a distinct advantage and also teaches us that the "evolutionary pressure" that is created by them on the population of normal humans is extremely useful: It actually produces the conditions that can lead to greater abilities IF UTILIZED CORRECTLY!

In a certain sense, this means that those individuals who are able to do this, whose survival is enhanced by such abilities, are "selected" evolutionarily speaking.


Now, let's come back to our problem: Is there a solution?

The obvious solution would be a world in which, at the very least, the psychopath - in government or in society - would be forced to be responsible for unethical behavior.

Could it ever be an evolutionarily stable strategy for people to be innately unselfish?

On the whole, a capacity to cheat, to compete and to lie has proven to be a stupendously successful adaptation. Thus the idea that selection pressure could ever cause saintliness to spread in a society looks implausible in practice. It doesn't seem feasible to outcompete genes which promote competitiveness. "Nice guys" get eaten or outbred. Happy people who are unaware get eaten or outbred. Happiness and niceness today is vanishingly rare, and the misery and suffering of those who are able to truly feel, who are empathic toward other human beings, who have a conscience, is all too common. And the psychopathic manipulations are designed to make psychopaths of us all.

Nevertheless, a predisposition to, conscience, ethics, can prevail if and when it is also able to implement the deepest level of altruism: making the object of its empathy the higher ideal of enhancing free will in the abstract sense, for the sake of others, including our descendants.

In short, our "self-interest" ought to be vested in collectively ensuring that all others are happy and well-disposed too; and in ensuring that children we bring into the world have the option of being constitutionally happy and benevolent toward one another.

This means that if psychopathy threatens the well-being of the group future, then it can be only be dealt with by refusing to allow the self to be dominated by it on an individual, personal basis. Preserving free will for the self in the practical sense, ultimately preserves free will for others. Protection of our own rights AS the rights of others, underwrites the free will position and potential for happiness of all. If mutant psychopaths pose a potential danger then true empathy, true ethics, true conscience, dictates using prophylactic therapy against psychopaths.

And so it is that identifying the psychopath, ceasing our interaction with them, cutting them off from our society, making ourselves unavailable to them as "food" or objects to be conned and used, is the single most effective strategy that we can play.

It seems certain from the evidence that a positive transformation of human nature isn't going to come about through a great spiritual awakening, socio-economic reforms, or a spontaneous desire among the peoples of the world to be nice to each other. But it's quite possible that, in the long run, the psychopathic program of suffering will lose out because misery is not a stable strategy. In a state of increasing misery, victims will seek to escape it; and this seeking will ultimately lead them to inquire into the true state of their misery, and that may lead to a society of intelligent people who will have the collective capacity to do so.

In short, I don't have any easy answers for the problem. I know that I think that Lisa Guliani is a sincere human being and that she and Victor are focused on what they do because they feel passionate about the subject of finding the truth of 911 and bringing the perpetrators to justice. They may not approach the subject perfectly with all the polish of, say, Barbra Walters and Walter Cronkite, but I get a kick out of their earthy, pull-no-punches and take-no-prisoners style. Sure, they have made mistakes; so has everyone. And no, their style may not be for everyone, just like our work is not for everyone. Everybody has a style and there is room for all different styles of presentation. But styles have nothing to do with the ability to agree that a crime was committed and to be able to get together and agree on a strategy that will effectively focus the energy on getting the matter before the widest public possible and getting their support to actually do something.

And the only way to do that is to identify and exclude deviants from the beginning. Period.

Let's take some clues from the movie "V for Vendetta." (I am quite taken with this movie not only because it is a marvelous representation of our situation and some of the key elements we need to deal with, but also because I am descended from the Percy's and Thomas Percy was a major player in the "Gunpowder Plot.")

Early in the movie we are presented with a "futuristic" reality that, to an aware individual, is not so futuristic. Ordinary people really don't realize how controlled they are. As Aldous Huxley wrote in Brave New World :
The older dictators fell because they never could supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles and mysteries. Nor did they possess a really effective system of mind-manipulation.

Under a scientific dictator, education will really work - with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.
Psychopaths have gone about this in a very "scientific" way, the result being - as we can see daily - most men and women really do love their servitude. The only problem is that psychopaths are also driven by their own natures and cannot apply the scientific method to figuring out why, again and again, eventually, normal people do wake up and revolt. Lobaczewski addresses this issue:
Pathocracy survives thanks to the feeling of being threatened by the society of normal people, as well as by other countries wherein various forms of the system of normal man persist. For the rulers, staying on the top is therefore the classic problem of "to be or not to be".

We can thus formulate a more cautious question: can such a system ever waive territorial and political expansion abroad and settle for its present possessions?

What would happen if such a state of affairs ensured internal peace, corresponding order, and relative prosperity within the nation?

The overwhelming majority of the country's population would then make skillful use of all the emerging possibilities, taking advantage of their superior qualifications in order to fight for an ever-increasing scope of activities; thanks to their higher birth rate, their power will increase. This majority will be joined by some sons from the privileged class who did not inherit the pathological genes. The pathocracy's dominance will weaken imperceptibly but steadily, finally leading to a situation wherein the society of normal people reaches for power.

This is a nightmare vision to the psychopaths.

Thus, the biological, psychological, moral, and economic destruction of the majority of normal people becomes, for the pathocrats, a "biological" necessity.

Many means serve this end, starting with concentration camps and including warfare with an obstinate, well-armed foe [like Iraq and Iran] who will devastate and debilitate the human power thrown at him, namely the very power jeopardizing pathocrats rule: the sons of normal man sent out to fight for an illusionary "noble cause." Once safely dead, the soldiers will then be decreed heroes to be revered in paeans, useful for raising a new generation faithful to the pathocracy and ever willing to go to their deaths to protect it.

Any war waged by a pathocratic nation has two fronts, the internal and the external. The internal front is more important for the leaders and the governing elite, and the internal threat is the deciding factor where unleashing war is concerned.

In pondering whether to start a war against the pathocratic country, other nations must therefore give primary consideration to the fact that such a war can be used as an executioner of the common people whose increasing power represents incipient jeopardy for the pathocracy. After all, pathocrats give short shrift to blood and suffering of people they consider to be not quite conspecific. Kings may have suffered due to the death of their knights, but pathocrats never do: "We have a lot of people here." Should the situation be, or become, ripe in such a country, however, anyone furnishing assistance to the nation will be blessed by it; anyone withholding it will be cursed.

Pathocracy has other internal reasons for pursuing expansionism through the use of all means possible. As long as that "other" world governed by the systems of normal man exists, it inducts into the non-pathological majority a certain sense of direction. The non-pathological majority of the country's population will never stop dreaming of the reinstatement of the normal man's system in any possible form. This majority will never stop watching other countries, waiting for the opportune moment; its attention and power must therefore be distracted from this purpose, and the masses must be "educated" and channeled in the direction of imperialist strivings. This goal must be pursued doggedly so that everyone knows what is being fought for and in whose name harsh discipline and poverty must be endured. The latter factor - creating conditions of poverty and hardship - effectively limits the possibility of "subversive" activities on the part of the society of normal people.

The ideology must, of course, furnish a corresponding justification for this alleged right to conquer the world and must therefore be properly elaborated. Expansionism is derived from the very nature of pathocracy, not from ideology, but this fact must be masked by ideology. Whenever this phenomenon has been witnessed in history, imperialism was always its most demonstrative quality.
In short, V for Vendetta does a very good job of artistically re-creating the very reality we live in: a totalitarian regime called Norsefire.

At the start of the film, the heroine, Evey (played by Natalie Portman) is rescued from state police by a guy in a Guy Fawkes mask. This is "V". He then takes her to a rooftop where they witness what turns out to be a spectacularly staged destruction of the Old Bailey. This is where we get some real insight into how the media spins things. On instructions from the Chancellor, the media explains the incident to the public as a planned demolition. The way the media is spun to cover up what REALLY happens is - believe it or not - the God's honest truth! (Remember the shoot-out in the Florida prison recently? Typical example.

One of the more interesting aspects of the movie is how it represents to us the effect of psychopaths upon certain types of people - the hero "V" himself, for example. In a surrealistic series of scenes, it shows us how well "V" learned the lesson and how he conveyed this to Evey by acting as her own personal psychopath. He makes it clear afterward how painful it was for him to have to shock her so severely but that he knew no other way of waking yer up safely. This is a good point: how many people are going to have to die, as Evey's comedian friend Gordon Dietrich, (played by Stephen Fry) did, because they do not understand the depth of the depravity of the dystopian world psychopathy has created?

The point is that by forcing Evey to experience what he had gone through himself at the hands of psychopaths, V hoped to teach Evey that our integrity, "the very last inch of us", is more important than our lives. Evey is initially very angry at V for what he has done to her, but soon realizes that, having faced her own death, she is now able to live without fear.

One of the people charged with capturing V is Inspector Finch played by Stephen Rea. (If you haven't watched the movie, Michael Collins where Rea plays a similar role, do so. It's another great movie about British Pathocrats. Also see The Crying Game. Rea was married to former IRA member and hunger striker, Dolours Price. His wife did 7 years for her part in an IRA car bombing outside the Old Bailey (UKs high court) in London. Interesting that it was the old bailey that "V" blew up first in the movie; a good Irish lad no doubt! )

Anyway, Finch starts digging for clues as to how to catch V, and in the process, finds that his origins are buried in the dirt of the Fascist regime. Fourteen years before, when Britain had been suffering war and terrorism, an ultra-conservative gang (similar to the Neocons) instigated a reactionary drive to restore order; the movie shows us how many so-called enemies of the state just "disappeared" during the night. Naturally, this led to the country becoming deeply divided over the loss of freedoms, just as the US is today. And then, a "bioterrorist attack" was apparently launched that killed over 100,000 people. The fear generated by the bioterrorism allowed the Neoconservative Norsefire gang to silence the opposition and rise to power. Shortly thereafter, a "cure" for the virus was "discovered". From that point on, with the cowed populace unable to resist, the Fascist Norsefire gang transformed Britain into a bigoted totalitarian regime. (Chancellor Adam Sutler played by John Hurt.)

What Finch discovers, however, is that the bioterrorist attack was actually created and perpetrated by Norsefire itself as a manipulation to power. The virus itself had been created by conducting terminal experiments on "social deviants" and political dissidents at a place called Larkhill. V, apparently, had been one of those experimented on. However, instead of dying as he was expected to do, he actually gained heightened mental and physical abilities which enabled him to destroy Larkhill and escape.

Again, we see an allusion to the effect of psychopaths on certain people: instead of destroying them, it just makes them smarter and stronger.

November 5 is the date V plans for his big move to bring down the Norsefire regime. With the example of V to inspire them, ordinary people become more open about their hatred of the fascist regime and more daring in their subversive, anarchic and dissident actions creating more and more chaos.

At one point it is shown that hundreds of thousands of Guy Fawkes masks are sent via mail to the population at large. This seems to be a mysterious thing at first, but the symbolic value of it later becomes clear.

Finally, November 5 arrives. V has arranged to gather the top psychopaths of the regime together and succeeds in killing them, but is mortally wounded in this superhuman effort. Evey finally understands what she must do: finish V's work. Though she is discovered by Inspector Finch, he has learned enough of the truth that he does not stay her hand when she depresses the switch that initiates the final destruction.

At the same time, the army of the regime are having a stand-off with the masses of the people who all begin to march silently from every direction wearing Guy Fawkes masks, hats and capes. Without their psychopathic masters to tell them what to do and to underwrite their safety, the soldiers are not able to fire upon this outstanding showing of normal human solidarity.

As Parliament begins to explode in a grand finale that makes merry the heart of normal man, the people begin, one by one, to remove their Guy Fawkes masks and one finally understands the symbolism.

Even though we are all individual human beings, those of us that ARE human all need to become as One - and that means excluding psychopaths and other deviants - in our search for the truth wherever that search may lead us...

Remember, remember the fifth of November...