Winter Patriot Community Blog

Why does the invaluable Mr. Floyd shy away from discussion of the most critical pivot in our descent?

So, this alleged FM 30-31B was claimed to be a forgery done by the KGB. Was this ever proven or disproven? Floyd doesn't appear to even have mentioned the controversy surrounding it.

http://cryptome.info/cia-FM30-31B.htm

You are right -- I was confusing Mr. Floyd's writing with Arthur Silber, who still clings to the "blowback" theory of 9/11. That said, I still find Mr. Floyd's cagey remarks about wanting a "full investigation" of 9/11 (which he acknowledges will never happen) disturbing, despite my admiration for his writing in many areas. I think you give him too much wiggle room. It is not simply a question of detailing the events of 9/11 (which many others have already done exhaustively) but of explicitly stating (1) that elements within the US government carried out this massive assault on US citizens and citizens of other countries, (2) the events of 9/11 became the basis for the "war on terror" and the ensuing nightmares, including the rabid persecution of muslims and arabs, and (3) they will do it again. Mr. Floyd hints at #3 at the end of the Cossiga piece, but his oblique references are annoying and unhelpful. Even his discussion of Gladio and the Cossiga stuff omits the long history of false flag terror on US soil, from COINTELPRO to Oklahoma City (and of course 9/11).

Mr. Floyd is trying to have it both ways, with a wink and a nod to 9/11 truth seekers but without being identified with that particular "conspiracy cult." At best, he is being evasive and, at worse, dishonest.

Calm down, folks. We are among the 200 or so readers of Chris Floyd, Arthur Silber, and Winter Patriot, and my comments were meant to be constructive, not "attacks." For crying out loud, I still read their stuff, send money to Arthur, and find both quite valuable. And please stop the childish name-calling. If you want to refute what I have said about Floyd, please do, but how is what I said "specious." And why are my comments not "surprising"? This is silly,

But on to Arthur Silber, another writer I admire, but who also has "9/11 problems." There is simply no doubt about Arthur Silber's views on 9/11. Here is a little sample. (I could not find other examples readily as it is difficult to search on his site, but will search for them if you insist.)

"The resistance of the ruling class and of most Americans to one aspect of the truth about 9/11 remains astonishing, and it demonstrates how puerile our national conversation is. Of course, the ruling class cannot admit that to state the obvious fact that actions have consequences is not to say that the U.S. "deserved" 9/11 -- for to acknowledge the millions murdered by the U.S. government and our policy of aggressive military intervention across the globe would subject our own actions to the kinds of judgments that only the United States is entitled to make, and only about the actions of others."
(from March 19, 2008, "Obama's Whitewash")

He is talking about 9/11 as "blowback" for the "millions murdered by the US government and our policy of aggressive military intervention..." Does this not clearly imply that non-US government actors actually carried out the events of 9/11/01? This is the "truth" Arthur is asserting (and has stated this in many ways in different essays), and I maintain he is simply wrong here, as I think you would also admit. Of course the US did not "deserve" 9/11; this is meaningless, and not for the reasons Arthur asserts. The perpetrators of this attack were elements of the US government . But Arthur clearly asserts otherwise, that the attackers were drawn from among the masses of people who the US military has brutalized, hence the false debate over whether the US "deserved" to be attacked. This is simply wrong, and based on a false view of the events of 9/11/01.

It would help people like Arthur Silber if a writer like Chris Floyd, who Arthur admires greatly, would clarify what he actually thinks did happen on 9/11/01 and who did it. Then we could maybe dispense with these annoying and nonsensical (and moralistic) tracts about "blowback" and the war on terror. This was my basic point. Frankly, I don't think I deserved the name-calling I have gotten here.

Certainly there was not enough evidence to call you a liar, NF, and as such is uncalled for, I agree. But equally, you are making claims about Chris Floyd and Arthur Silber without showing enough evidence. The quote of Arthur's is not conclusive for your case as he was addressing another issue; that being America's foreign policy history and may have been making a point of the "even if" variety.
Arthur, Chris and Winter all get their ducks in a row before claiming ANYTHING. You should do the same.

I love the PF mandate of "calm down people, stop the name-calling" when it is PF trying to inflame antipathy and it is PF accusing Messrs Floyd and Silber of being something other than what they are. Whether PF chooses to undermine Floyd & Silber with overt name-calling or sly implication, the effect is the same.

In my opinion, PF's portrayal of Arthur Silber's position on 9/11 is mostly accurate, although it may be a bit generous.

Arthur Silber doesn't assign any particular historical importance to 9/11. He accepts the official story, without any hint of curiosity as to whether or not it's true. Worse, in my opinion, he also pours scorn on those of us who question that story, and/or who seek the truth about the events of that day.

There is no search box on his site but you can search his archives using Google. Type "site:powerofnarrative.blogspot.com" and the terms you're looking for. I have spent hours and hours doing this myself, and I came up with ... nothing!

Arthur Silber has never broached any of the subjects that people interested in 9/11 tend to discuss: he has never mentioned Mohammed Atta, or Able Danger, or Vigilant Warrior, or Building 7, or even the PNAC. He has never used the phrase "inside job" in relation to 9/11, nor has he ever acknowledged any of the skepticism surrounding that event and the official story thereof. Search his site all you like; you will find nothing on any of this.

He has also neglected to mention -- ever -- any concerns about the "integrity" of our electoral system. In the world according to Arthur Silber, 19 Arab terrorists with boxcutters did all the damage on 9/11, and Bush is the president because he was legitimately elected -- twice.

As I see modern America, two of the three most important facets are bogus terror and bogus elections. (Bogus media is the third). I find it difficult to read -- or to take seriously -- anyone who denies even one of these facets, let alone two of them.

I have enjoyed reading Winter Patriot since stumbling on it a few months back, but have found dialogue with you to be much less rewarding. You have now agreed that my characterization of Arthur Silber's positions on 9/11/01 were not the "lies" you initially called them and now you say I was too "generous" about them. With regard to Mr. Floyd, I have posted on his site and await his reply. I have also emailed Mr. Silber for his views.

Now I hope you can stop attacking me and maybe start taking my comments for what they were intended to be. I am not interested in tearing down Mr. Floyd or Mr. Silber, but to the extent that your readers also read their writing, and accept their essays as informative, I am interested in clarification and constructive criticism. I had thought that this site was dedicated to exposing the truth and would be receptive to open dialogue. I was apparently wrong. I greatly appreciate your work, and others toiling in these trenches (as I am also doing). It is therefore unfortunate that you are so thin-skinned as to abuse commenters on your blog with name-calling, distortions, and petty insults, only to recant later. I will know better than to comment again on this site.

I appreciate that you (like all of us) have many important things to do besides blog, and these are complicated times, but most of the "questions" around 9/11/01, the 1993 WTC bombing, Oklahoma City bombing and others can be answered through analysis of the mainstream press. You have to work at it. We live in times when the "terrorist mastermind" Khalid Sheik Muhammed (KSM) allegedly in Guantanamo "confessed" to every terror bombing of the last decade, despite the fact that the real KSM was killed in 2002 in Pakistan. We have been sold the lie that "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi" was leading something called "Al Queda in Mesopotamia" yet he too had been dead for years, prior to appearing in Iraq. The psyops go on and on, and the world gets muddier and more confusing, leaving us defenseless in the face of new manipulative "terror" bombings and the like.

One last thing. I encourage you and your readers to listen to Ralph Schoenmann and Mya Schoen's radio show "Taking Aim" (www.takingaimradio.com) for invaluable analyses of all these issues and more. They have download-able archives of dozens of past shows, which are extremely informative. Adios.

Just how far into the bottomless pit do I have to go before I realize that evil rules this world? Truth is truth, I know, but

the truth is right at the top, like cream. I don't want to go into the bottomless pit. Been there, done that. It never ends well.

Whatever this means, I'm not exactly sure. Help.

and it's amazing how many questions they can raise and then ignore, isn't it?

PF left the following comment for Chris Floyd:

~~~
What about strategy of tension on US soil?

While I continue to read your important and compelling essays, I find your refusal to speak directly about the events of 9/11/01 frustrating and, frankly, disingenuous. You have noted in other posts your support for "an independent investigation" but you have stopped short of calling those events a false flag operation out of the Gladio mold. Why? I realize you do not cling to the idiotic official fiction involving 19 "muslim hijackers" but you have not (to my knowledge) ever indicated who are the real culprits.

Further, the US has a long history of internecine violence created by intelligence agencies, including the extensively-documented COINTELPRO that featured targeted assassinations, creation of fake "radical organizations," and free-lancing provocateurs. Why no mention of these, or of the roles of shadowy government figures in the assassinations of MLK, JFK, RFK, and Malcolm X, not to mention the Oklahoma City bombing? All this has been documented, often in the mainstream press. If we are going to finally talk about these "conspiracies," let's talk about them. The failure to discuss any domestic examples of the strategy of tension in this essay is extremely disturbing.
~~~

and Chris replied:

~~~
Obviously, the reason I don't talk about every subject that you want me to talk about when you want me to talk about it and at the length and depth at which you want me to talk about it is because I am paid $36,759.46 each and every month by the Left Gatekeepers Association to befuddle the mind of the masses with my "disingenuous" commentary. The fact that, to my knowledge, I was only the third writer in a mainstream English-language print publication to draw attention to the fact that PNAC's call for a "new Pearl Harbor" in September 2000 was answered with the "new Pearl Harbor" of September 2001 was clearly just the opening salvo in my long obfuscatory campaign. This also applies to the plethora of articles I have written over the years about Operation Northwoods, the phony Gulf of Tonkin attacks, the CIA's mind-control experiments, the decades-long secret "Continuity of Government" plans, the assassinations of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, the Pentagon program to create and/or direct terrorist groups and put them into action, and so on and so forth and so forth and so on.

It is true that I have called often for an independent investigation of 9/11 (even one without scary quote marks around it). That's because I personally, sitting here at home with my computer, cannot say with the degree of apostolic certainty that you seem to possess that I know "who are the real culprits." I may have many reasonable and credible suspicions, and I have often alluded to them. And as you so generously grant, I do not cling to the ever-shifting, hole-ridden official story of the events of that day. But yes, I would like to see considerable resources -- far beyond those that I possess -- applied to an honest and full investigation of the events to establish the full truth of the matter.

Again, I can only apologize for not addressing all the topics you mention to your satisfaction. I do think they are important and worthy of investigation and analysis, and if I had more time, I'm sure I'd give more time to them, and to many other issues as well. As it is, I do what I can when I am able to do it. The "failure to discuss any domestic examples of the strategy of tension" in the blog post was because I was writing a, er, blog post, not an exhaustive monograph on the subject. I saw the Guardian piece on the Italian interview, recalled the Gladio piece I wrote long ago, and put them together in a quick post that I hoped readers might find interesting and informative -- and worth pursuing on their own bent. If you are "extremely disturbed" by this unremarkable process, and find it somehow sinister, well then, what can I say? That would seem to be more of a problem for you than for me. But it is certainly not my intention to add to anyone's burdens and anxieties, so I'm sorry about that.
~~~
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/3/1650-security-bla...

WP - When I referred to "you," I was referring to the broader Winter Patriot group of responders and my comments were meant collectively. I apologize for implying that you called me a liar; that was someone else on this space. It was wrong of me to accuse you of making such a slur. Ok? I would suggest, however, that some commenters here are not so restrained.

And I said the previous post was my last, but I have something else to add. One reason why I included the www.takingaimradio.com site in my previous post was to indicate that there are other researchers and thinkers out there who understand the nature of events like 9/11/01, the 1993 WTC bombings, etc. and we should all benefit from their work on these matters to broaden our own understanding (and you link to some of them). Someone here has posted my dialogue with Chris Floyd here, which is instructive, I think. Mr. Floyd's response was that he did not have time or resources to investigate the litany of issues I presented, yet I was not asking him to do this. IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE. There's www.AE911truth.org on the 9/11 events. Sites like www.whatreallyhappened.com have done great work on the Oklahoma City bombing and many other events. William Pepper has done yeoman's work on the MLK assassination, and similarly Joan Mellen and Ralph Schoenmann (and Mark Lane) have uncovered enormous info around the JFK and RFK assassinations.

It would be good if insightful writers like Floyd and Arthur Silber and others were able to find the time and energy to read (or listen to) the work these (and other) folks have done and apply it to ongoing events for their readership. You demonstrated the value of this perspective in your recent post on the Pakistan hotel bombing, describing it as "Pakistan's 911." But this is the root of my frustration with Chris Floyd (and more so Arthur Silber). I am not looking for him to do all the research, but instead to produce writing that is clearly informed by an understanding of the way our ruling class rules, specifically its frequent use of domestic terror to manipulate American public opinion. When Floyd says says he has his "suspicions" about 9/11, this does not help to inform his readers about the nature of the American ruling class. Seven years later, he is still mulling over whether 9/11 was an inside job. And Arthur Silber still thinks 19 hijackers brought down the World Trade Center (as you have also pointed out).

This point is extremely important. Both Silber and Floyd have produced excellent work, but their blind spots are hurting us as we wait for the next domestic false flag event to start the 9/11 insanity all over again. We need to be prepared to refute official "evidence" as it is produced, and help the majority of people who rarely think about these things to see these events more clearly. We do not need political leadership from them, only clear and insightful perspectives on current events. Anyone can read the mainstream press, but many of us look to these and other writers for factual interpretation of those events. The mass media lies, and we need to be able to dissect it so that we can act. That, after all, is what this is all about -- giving people information to let them take real control over their own lives, and not handing over power to people who push the same lies and war under the guise of "hope" and "change."

Thank you for your patience.