Monday, September 25, 2017

Robert Parry: The Crazy Imbalance of Russia-Gate

By Robert Parry

Exclusive: If the U.S. government and mainstream media are really concerned about foreign influence in American politics, they might look at Israel and other nations with much more clout than Russia, notes Robert Parry.

The core absurdity of the Russia-gate frenzy is its complete lack of proportionality. Indeed, the hysteria is reminiscent of Sen. Joe McCarthy warning that “one communist in the faculty of one university is one communist too many” or Donald Trump’s highlighting a few “bad hombres” raping white American women.

Russians taking part in an Immortal Regiment march on May 9, 2017, honoring relatives who died in the Nazi invasion and the eventual defeat of Germany in World War II.
It’s not that there were no Americans who espoused communist views at universities and elsewhere or that there are no “bad hombre” rapists; it’s that these rare exceptions were used to generate a dangerous overreaction in service of a propagandistic agenda. Historically, we have seen this technique used often when demagogues seize on an isolated event and exploit it emotionally to mislead populations to war.

Today, we have The New York Times and The Washington Post repeatedly publishing front-page articles about allegations that some Russians with “links” to the Kremlin bought $100,000 in Facebook ads to promote some issues deemed hurtful to Hillary Clinton’s campaign although some of the ads ran after the election.

Initially, Facebook could find no evidence of even that small effort but was pressured in May by Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia. The Washington Post reported that Warner, who is spearheading the Russia-gate investigation in the Senate Intelligence Committee, flew to Silicon Valley and urged Facebook executives to take another look at possible ad buys.

Facebook responded to this congressional pressure by scouring its billions of monthly users and announced that it had located 470 suspect accounts associated with ads totaling $100,000 – out of Facebook’s $27 billion in annual revenue.

Here is how the Times described those findings: “Facebook officials disclosed that they had shut down several hundred accounts that they believe were created by a Russian company linked to the Kremlin and used to buy $100,000 in ads pushing divisive issues during and after the American election campaign.” (It sometimes appears that every Russian — all 144 million of them — is somehow “linked” to the Kremlin.)

Last week, congressional investigators urged Facebook to expand its review into “troll farms” supposedly based in Belarus, Macedonia and Estonia – although Estonia is by no means a Russian ally; it joined NATO in 2004.

“Warner and his Democratic counterpart on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, have been increasingly vocal in recent days about their frustrations with Facebook,” the Post reported.

Facebook Complies

So, on Thursday, Facebook succumbed to demands that it turn over to Congress copies of the ads, a move that has only justified more alarmist front-page stories about Russia! Russia! Russia!

Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg.
In response to this political pressure – at a time when Facebook is fending off possible anti-trust legislation – its chief executive Mark Zuckerberg added that he is expanding the investigation to include “additional Russian groups and other former Soviet states.”

So, it appears that not only are all Russians “linked” to the Kremlin, but all former Soviet states as well.

But why stop there? If the concern is that American political campaigns are being influenced by foreign governments whose interests may diverge from what’s best for America, why not look at countries that have caused the United States far more harm recently than Russia?

After all, Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Wahabbi leaders have been pulling the U.S. government into their sectarian wars with the Shiites, including conflicts in Yemen and Syria that have contributed to anti-Americanism in the region, to the growth of Al Qaeda, and to a disruptive flow of refugees into Europe.

And, let’s not forget the 8,000-pound gorilla in the room: Israel. Does anyone think that whatever Russia may or may not have done in trying to influence U.S. politics compares even in the slightest to what Israel does all the time?

Which government used its pressure and that of its American agents (i.e., the neocons) to push the United States into the disastrous war in Iraq? It wasn’t Russia, which was among the countries urging the U.S. not to invade; it was Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Indeed, the plans for “regime change” in Iraq and Syria can be traced back to the work of key American neoconservatives employed by Netanyahu’s political campaign in 1996. At that time, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and other leading neocons unveiled a seminal document entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” which proposed casting aside negotiations with Arabs in favor of simply replacing the region’s anti-Israeli governments.

However, to make that happen required drawing in the powerful U.S. military, so after the 9/11 attacks, the neocons inside President George W. Bush’s administration set in motion a deception campaign to justify invading Iraq, a war which was to be followed by more “regime changes” in Syria and Iran.

A Wrench in the Plans

Although the military disaster in Iraq threw a wrench into those plans, the Israeli/neocon agenda never changed. Along with Israel’s new regional ally, Saudi Arabia, a proxy war was fashioned to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

President Trump meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in New York on Sept. 18, 2017. (Screenshot from
As Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren explained, the goal was to shatter the Shiite “strategic arc” running from Iran through Syria to Lebanon and Israel’s Hezbollah enemies.

How smashing this Shiite “arc” was in the interests of the American people – or even within their consciousness – is never explained. But it was what Israel wanted and thus it was what the U.S. government enlisted to do, even to the point of letting sophisticated U.S. weaponry fall into the hands of Syria’s Al Qaeda affiliate.

Israel’s influence over U.S. politicians is so blatant that presidential contenders queue up every year to grovel before the Israel Lobby’s conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In 2016, Donald Trump showed up and announced that he was not there to “pander” and then pandered his pants off.

And, whenever Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to show off his power, he is invited to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress at which Republicans and Democrats compete to see how many times and how quickly they can leap to their feet in standing ovations. (Netanyahu holds the record for the number of times a foreign leader has addressed joint sessions with three such appearances, tied with Winston Churchill.)

Yet, Israeli influence is so engrained in the U.S. political process that even the mention of the existence of an “Israel Lobby” brings accusations of anti-Semitism. “Israel Lobby” is a forbidden phrase in Washington.

However, pretty much whenever Israel targets a U.S. politician for defeat, that politician goes down, a muscle that Israel flexed in the early 1980s in taking out Rep. Paul Findley and Sen. Charles Percy, two moderate Republicans whose crime was to suggest talks with the Palestine Liberation Organization.

So, if the concern is the purity of the American democratic process and the need to protect it from outside manipulation, let’s have at it. Why not a full-scale review of who is doing what and how? Does anyone think that Israel’s influence over U.S. politics is limited to a few hundred Facebook accounts and $100,000 in ads?

A Historical Perspective

And, if you want a historical review, throw in the British and German propaganda around the two world wars; include how the South Vietnamese government collaborated with Richard Nixon in 1968 to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson’s Paris peace talks; take a serious look at the collusion between Ronald Reagan’s campaign and Iran thwarting President Jimmy Carter’s efforts to free 52 American hostages in Tehran in 1980; open the books on Turkey’s covert investments in U.S. politicians and policymakers; and examine how authoritarian regimes of all stripes have funded important Washington think tanks and law firms.

President Ronald Reagan, delivering his Inaugural Address on Jan. 20, 1981, as the 52 U.S. hostages in Iran are simultaneously released.
If such an effort were ever proposed, you would get a sense of how sensitive this topic is in Official Washington, where foreign money and its influence are rampant. There would be accusations of anti-Semitism in connection with Israel and charges of conspiracy theory even in well-documented cases of collaboration between U.S. politicians and foreign interests.

So, instead of a balanced and comprehensive assessment of this problem, the powers-that-be concentrate on the infinitesimal case of Russian “meddling” as the excuse for Hillary Clinton’s shocking defeat. But the key reasons for Clinton’s dismal campaign had virtually nothing to do with Russia, even if you believe all the evidence-lite accusations about Russian “meddling.”

The Russians did not tell Clinton to vote for the disastrous Iraq War and play endless footsy with the neocons; the Russians didn’t advise her to set up a private server to handle her State Department emails and potentially expose classified information; the Russians didn’t lure Clinton and the U.S. into the Libyan fiasco nor suggest her ghastly joke in response to Muammar Gaddafi’s lynching (“We came, we saw, he died”); the Russians had nothing to do with her greedy decision to accept millions of dollars in Wall Street speaking fees and then try to keep the speech contents secret from the voters; the Russians didn’t encourage her husband to become a serial philanderer and make a mockery of their marriage; nor did the Russians suggest to Anthony Weiner, the husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, that he send lewd photos to a teen-ager on a laptop also used by his wife, a development that led FBI Director James Comey to reopen the Clinton-email investigation just 11 days before the election; the Russians weren’t responsible for Clinton’s decision not to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan; the Russians didn’t stop her from offering a coherent message about how she would help the struggling white working class; and on and on.

But the Russia-gate investigation is not about fairness and balance; it’s a reckless scapegoating of a nuclear-armed country to explain away – and possibly do away with – Donald Trump’s presidency. Rather than putting everything in context and applying a sense of proportion, Russia-gate is relying on wild exaggerations of factually dubious or relatively isolated incidents as an opportunistic means to a political end.

As reckless as President Trump has been, the supposedly wise men and wise women of Washington are at least his match.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and

Dr. Eowyn: After pushing for Muslim immigration into Europe, Jews now say Jews should leave Europe

Jews are a main force pushing for immigration, “migration” and “refugee resettlement” of Third World peoples (mainly Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East) into Europe and North America.

See also “French rabbi Rav Touitou applauds Muslim invasion of Europe”.
Curiously, Jews’ advocacy of open immigration doesn’t extend to Israel.
But the flood of Muslim “migrants” into Europe have produced a myriad of social ills. See for example:
Now that Europe is ruined by their governments’ wrong-headed open-door policy to “migrants” — a policy pushed by Jews — Jews are bemoaning a situation they themselves have promoted, and asking if it is time for Jews to leave Europe.

How perverse is that?!

In April 2015, The Atlantic magazine published an article by its national correspondent Jeffrey Goldberg asking “Is It Time for the Jews to Leave Europe?”, as well as hosted a discussion on the same subject among three of its staffers who are all Jews:

Below is a video from the discussion, which was uploaded to YouTube by The Atlantic on April 29, 2015. It is at once stunning and illuminating and well worth your time. I’ve transcribed parts of the discussion below.

The problem is stated by Bennet — the blameless Jews as the eternal victim and scapegoat of “other” people’s problems (19:46 mark):
“The Jews are collateral . . . . When civilizations clash, Jews die…. We’re seeing a clash between two different ways of being. We’re seeing an indigestible Muslim minority confronting a Europe that is paralyzed and doesn’t even know itself anymore. And the Jews happen to be sitting there, and sometimes as an afterthought, they are attacked; sometimes as a convenient scapegoat they’re attacked. But they’re not in a way part of the larger drama. They just sit there and get it in the neck…. Jews are not in control of what happens to Jews in Europe, and that is the best reason to sort of think about an exit.”
Goldberg on how unlivable life is for Jews in Europe (8:03):
“At my synagogue in Washington, DC, we often will have services outside. The thought of doing that in Europe is an impossibility! You can’t do anything out in the open anymore, and it seems like a very straightened, narrow, archaic way to live.”
All three men agree that “liberalism” has failed in Europe, by which they mean the “liberal” culture of “tolerance” and “multiculturalism”:
Goldberg (15:26): “In a sense, liberalism has failed. If this doesn’t work, it has failed in Europe.”
Who’s to blame? While putting some of the blame on Muslims, the panelists mainly blame the Europeans, i.e., non-Jewish “white” Europeans for not being nice to the Muslim “migrants”:
Goldberg (9:46): “This Muslim Judeaphobia that you see, this is not created in complete isolation. This is not wholly a Middle Eastern import. This is fed by classical European anti-Semitic tropes” which led to the Holocaust.

Wieseltier (11:25): “European liberalism as we know from its history constantly provoked recoils and allergic reaction. Fascism and communism both were in some way allergic responses to the European liberalism. The [European] liberal state can actually collide with an illiberal society and illiberal culture, and I think to some extent that’s what’s happening.” The situation in Europe now is a “top down liberalism whereby the state is liberal and motivated by all the right values. And then there is this bottom, which lives peacefully most of the time, but [not] really sufficiently to some extent.”

Bennet (16:08): “You have to admit that it’s odd that it’s . . . this has happened in part . . . by the importation of poor Muslims to labor on behalf of industrial Europe by these Muslims being put in these ghettos and in disenfranchised positions.

Wieseltier (16:35): “It is true that these new Muslim communities are the proximate [immediate] causes of this crisis, but the non proximate cause is the more distant causes — the treatment or mistreatment of these [Muslim] communities, the societies to which they arrived, the prejudice that they found, the indifference that they found . . . and their apparent lack of interest in actually integrating.”
When Bennet asks if in some way Muslims are not “meltable,” i.e., they refuse to assimilate into the host society, Wieseltier actually admits Jews also are not “meltable”:
(17:52): “The same point about the Jews. During the great debates about Jewish emancipation in the 18th-early 19th century in Western Europe, the arguments always were the Jews cannot be absorbed because they were ‘a state within a state’ because their laws and their way of life make them unassimilable.
All agree that Jews need to leave Europe, even though ironically, as Bennet observed (12:51), “This is what Hitler wanted”:
Bennet (12:10): “The tragic outcome of this is that the Jews in fact do need to all leave Europe.
Bennet (15:51): “I would prefer them to leave in a kind of way because I think it’s not very safe to be there.
And where would Europe’s Jews go? While the panelists note that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has welcomed Jews to Israel, the panelists don’t seem enthusiastic about that idea but don’t explain why. Instead, they have their eyes on North America:
Wieseltier (15:32): “I think that there is democracy in the United States, there’s democracy is Canada. Both these countries would welcome these Jews.“ 
Last but not least, when Bennet asks (12:19) “What would be most Jewish thing for the last Jew [to leave Europe] to do, the most appropriate fitting thing?”
Wieseltier says (12:23):
The last thing that you [the last Jew} should do when he or she leaves Europe is spit.”
I recommend that you read viewers’ comments on the video’s YouTube page. Here’s a sample:
“The last Jew to leave Europe should spit? The utter contempt for native European people these people have."

“LOL at blaming the islamic discrimination for jews onto the europeans, whilst importing millions of muslim migrants."

“Even within a video titled ‘Should the Jews Leave Europe?’, the Muslims end up getting painted as the victims.”

“Jews have no intention of ever leaving Europe of their own free will. The idea that the interests of gentiles in maintaining their own cultures and institutions for themselves Is not an idea that washes well with most of these narcissistic arrogant parasites.”

“Too bad every single Jew in the world can’t just move to Israel and leave their host countries alone.”

“Jews are always the big promoters of multiculturalism (except for Israel of course, hypocrites), either through non-profit organizations (Soros) or through political bribery. Jews are and have always been anti-white that’s why they have been deported out of more than a 100 countries in history. History repeats and the wheel of karma keeps turning.”

See also:

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Dr. Eowyn: Antifa professor Mike Isaacson who wants "cops dead" put on administrative leave

Like other universities’ criminal justice program, a main purpose of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York (CUNY) is to train students for careers in law enforcement.

So it’s especially disturbing that Mike Isaacson, 29, an adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice‘s economic department, is a founder of Antifa (Anti Fascists), whom the Obama administration’s DHS and FBI, in an April 2016 confidential joint report, had determined to be domestic terrorists.

In a tweet last year, Isaacson confirms that Antifa are communists, saying that “fascists” are anti-communists, which in turn means that Antifa are pro-communism.

Indeed, as you can see, Antifa’s logo is almost identical to the 1932 flag of the paramilitary wing of the German Communist Party.

More recently, in an August 20, 2017 tweet, Isaacson validated the DHS/FBI’s designation of Antifa as domestic terrorists, nonsensically portraying Antifa as “freedom fighters” who use violence to “protect” nonviolence.

In the video below, one of Isaacson’s female comrades declares “the Left” must undertake “militant mass protests”.

In an interview with Tucker Carlson, flashing his blindingly-white teeth with hair oh-so-artfully covering his left eye, Isaacson states that Alt-Rightists like Richard Spencer don’t have the right of free speech and deserve to have Antifa shut them down.

Worse still, on August 23, Isaacson actually tweeted that he looks forward to his law-enforcement students being future “dead cops”.

New York Police Commissioner James O’Neill tweeted his outrage:
“As a 2x grad there, I know Michael Isaacson’s reprehensible values don’t represent @JohnJayCollege, #NYC, #NYPD or families of murdered cops.”
Last Friday, 23 days after Isaacson’s “dead cops” tweet, John Jay College finally placed Mike Isaacson on administrative leave.

In a statement, John Jay’s president Karol Mason said that she was “shocked” and “appalled” by Isaacson’s words, which are “the antithesis of what John Jay College represents” and pose a danger to the safety of faculty and students. Mason writes:
“While respecting free speech and academic freedom are deeply held values, expressions of hate or intimidation are not welcome in that civil discourse, nor is anything that can be perceived as an incitement to violence.

The safety of our students, faculty and staff is our top priority. Today, members of the John Jay faculty received threats, and our students expressed concerns for their safety in the classroom. Out of concern for the safety of our students, faculty and staff, we are immediately placing the adjunct on administrative leave as we continue to review this matter.”
Adjunct faculty are non-tenure track temporary hires, which means they can be fired at will. It is highly unlikely that John Jay College will retain Mike Isaacson, whose academic career is effectively kaput — and rightly so.

H/t InfoWars, GiGi and rr.

See also:

Michael Rivero blows his cover as a 9/11 gatekeeper

Jim Fetzer

When published a recent piece on the importance of the alternative on-line media, highlighting the contributions of Matt Drudge, Steve Quayle, Michael Rivero and Jeff Rense, I anticipated that it would not be long before they would come under attack by the truth suppressors:

I did not have long to wait because Media Matters, which is run by David Brock--reported to be the boyfriend of James Alifantis, notorious as the owner of Comet Ping-Pong Pizza and central to the PizzaGate scandal--launched an attack upon Drudge as an instrument of Russian propaganda:
where serious students of current affairs know that RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik News are among the most accurate and reliable news sources in the world today, unlike The Washington Post and The New York Times, which have long since been absorbed as instruments of propaganda by the CIA.

Rivero attacks Me over 9/11

I anticipated that other attacks on Rivero and on Rense, where my show, "The Raw Deal", is broadcast over, would be forthcoming. But imagine my surprise when I received the following from one of my followers who was reporting that Rivero had been attacking me instead:
Indeed, between 46:40 and 48:40, in response to what I believe to have been a prearranged call, he attacks me in a 2-minute exchange for my positions on the use of holograms and mini nukes in New York, that no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11 and even (surprisingly) that we did not land on the moon:

The caller had no problem with the towers having been destroyed by plane impacts and jet-fuel based fires, which is physically impossible. They were too robust for any real plane to penetrate them, which was why they had to be faked. He called in for expert advice, but Rivero reinforced his ignorance.

The Use of Mini Nukes

The observable destruction sequence, for example, where the towers are being blown apart in every direction--from the top down--and converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust--which is a signature of nuclear events--would be confirmed by USGS dust studies, as I explain in detail:

Because the use of mini nukes and of holograms to fake the planes is difficult for many students of 9/11 to understand, I have spelled it out in clear and accessibly ways on many occasions, as I did during the first "Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference" (2013). Apparently, Michael Rivero didn't get the memo:

During the second "Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference" (2016), Dennis Cimino focused on what did and did not happen at the Pentagon. (For more, see "Reflections on the Pentagon: A 9/11 Photographic Review'.) We know that no plane hit the Pentagon, something Michael also seems not to understand.

"The Kookification Squad"

According to Rivero, I am part of "that kookifcation squad and their job is to make anybody that's questioning the official story look bad . . . this idea of no plane at the Pentagon was ginned up out of thin air in order to tarnish the truth movement." But that's a tough case to make on several grounds:

First, I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth (2005), gave the keynote at Alex Jones' 9/11 American Scholars Conference in LA (2006), was flown to Athens for a 3.5 hour television interview on 9/11 that was broadcast worldwide by satellite (2006); organized the first 9/11 Scholars conference in Madison (2007); published THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007) with 11 contributors; was flown to Buenos Aires for lectures on JFK and 9/11 (2008); was flown back to give the keynote for An International Symposium on 9/11 Truth and Justice (2009) held at The National Library of the Republic of Argentina; organized "Debunking the War on Terror" in London (2010); organized The Vancouver 9/11 Hearings (2012); organized The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference (2013); organized the Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference II (2016) with 12 participants; and published AMERICA NUKED ON 9/11 (2017) with 14 contributors; while maintaining Scholars for 9/11 Truth website and its discussion forum.

Second, that no plane hit the Pentagon has been apparent since Thierry Meyssan published "Hunt the Boeing"; there is no sign of any plane having hit anywhere near the Pentagon, as Jamie McIntyre of CNN reported on 9/11; there is no massive pile of aluminum debris from a 100-ton airliner at the hit point on the ground floor; no bodies, no seats, no luggage, no wings, no engines; civilian lime-green firetrucks extinguish the modest fires at the hit point, where the Pentagon lawn is clear, green and unblemished; the large section of the Pentagon did not collapse until 45 minutes after the plane had allegedly hit; there is no debris on the lawn until after that section collapses, where a piece of debris from a Boeing 757 shows up that has been tracked to a crash near Cali, Columbia, in 1995; black, billowing clouds later visible across the Potomac from the Capitol came from a series of enormous dumpsters as a Hollywood-style special effect; and the official trajectory of a 757 flying at over 500 mph barely skimming the ground, taking out a series of lampposts, is not even aerodynamically possible.

Third, the "serious scholars of 9/11" he appears to have in mind are Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan, Steven Jones and those who publish in The Journal of 9/11 Studies; but who are committed to nanothermite as responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers, which T. Mark Hightower and I have demonstrated to be impossible; they are publishing articles that claim a plane really did hit the Pentagon; and they are unwilling to address who was responsible and why, where Richard Gage left 9/11 Truth in a time-warp on C-SPAN; where a nice overview of the differences between the key groups in 9/1l research--A&E911, Judy Wood and DEWs and Scholars for 9/11 Truth--recently appeared in The Millennium Report (12 September 2017) providing a summary of the differences between the three and why A&E911 and Judy Wood appear to be limited hangouts, which allow some of the truth about 9/11 to be revealed but conceal, obfuscate or suppress crucial aspects, which include the use of mini or micro nukes, the role of holograms and that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

When Rivero claims that "the serious researchers all know that a plane hit the Pentagon", therefore, he could not be more wrong. Serious researchers have been questioning that claim for 15 years, since "Hunt the Boeing" first appeared (2002). We know for a certainty that no plane hit the Pentagon.

Michael Rivero as Limited Hangout

More proof that Michael Rivero is a 9/11 gatekeeper includes: that the use of holograms explains the impossible speed of Flight 175 as it approaches the South Tower, which Pilots for 9/11 Truth has shown would have caused a Boeing 767 to disintegrate at that speed and altitude; its impossible entry into a massive, 500,000-ton building with no collision effects (including no debris beneath the towers' facades), even though it was intersecting with eight floors (consisting of an acre of concrete on a steel truss apiece), and why it did not explode external to the building. Indeed, a recent interview of a pilot by James Perloff has confirmed why they had to fake the planes using holograms rather than depend upon real pilots: "What's better than planes flying into buildings? The illusion of planes flying into buildings. Especially if it's a high explosive/incendiary guided missile with some sort of holographic projection device strapped to its back." There's nothing "kooky" about invoking holograms to explain the evidence and the use of nukes, which are the only hypotheses that fit the data, including the USGS's findings of elements that would not have been present had this not been a nuclear event. It's called "science".

Not only does Rivero attack me for advancing the best-supported hypotheses about how the towers were destroyed and how the planes were projected (when the speed in flight was aerodynamically impossible and the entry absent collision effects was physically impossible) for real planes but his defense of a Boeing 757 having hit the Pentagon was immediate and an addition to the objection being raised by the caller. Once you review the evidence, how can those of us who have concluded that no plane hit the Pentagon possibly be "poisoning the well" or "promoting propaganda"? All the evidence is on our side, where the only alternative arises if TRUTH is envisioned as POISON, which of course it is for those who want to suppress it. I have challenged Rivero to debate these issues on his show, on "The Power Hour" or on "Infowars". He and I have now been invited to appear on "The Power Hour" this Monday, 25 September 2017, from 10-11 AM/ET (9-10 AM/CT). I will be there; he may or may not. The clincher, if one were needed, came when he threw in my denial that we landed men on the moon.

The proof that we did not go to the moon is abundant and compelling. My interest was awakened during a visit to London where, when we turned on the TV, one of the BBC channels was playing, "Conspiracy Theory: Did we land on the moon?", which offers one scientific proof after another that we did not go. Because of my background in the history and the philosophy of science, I was hooked and have since done further research on the matter, including publishing AND I SUPPOSE WE DIDN'T GO TO THE MOON, EITHER? (2015) and subsequent interviews with Dennis Cimino, "The Great Moon Landing Hoax" and "The Real Deal: More on the Moon Landing Hoax". Indeed, I have been amused by recent developments, where NASA has admitted that the greatest obstacle to a manned mission to Mars is the Van Allen Radiation Belt; where NASA has destroyed a priceless collection of video of the moon landing; and where NASA has sought the assistance of the public to solve its "space poop" problem. Rivero appears to have done no more research on the moon landings than he has on the Pentagon. His effort to trash me has instead unintentionally revealed his role in the media today.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus on the Duluth Campus of the University of Minnesota. He is the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.