The System Plays Us For Fools ; ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION ?

We the people of this country, as well as many others around the world , have been repeatedly violated by a revolving minority of elite, greedy, power hungry psychopaths who have been operating with impunity thanks to the complicity of those in whom we have mistakenly given our trust as elected representatives. We are living in the illusion of democracy because that’s what the system needs to keep us distracted , meanwhile the ” The Rule of Law ” has become a corrupted concept that is only selectively applied when it is necessary to instill fear in the masses.

                       A possible future of Peace and Mutual Cooperation around the world has been stolen from us, most notably beginning with the assassination of JFK, and proceeding with even greater arrogance right up until the present day. We are now facing a new incarnation of FASCISM , a NEO LIBERAL FASCISM!

Meanwhile the corporate media talking heads practice the propaganda techniques of omission  and misdirection while candy coating this malfeasance with babble about celebrities, puppies, and pizza.

                     Does this state of affairs inspire a sense of anger and indignation, or are you willing to go to any lengths necessary, including the abject denial of troubling realities, to maintain your comfort level within this system?

                   If you find yourself hungry for discussion that offers a reasoned perspective on what we, and young people especially, are facing today and in the very near future, then join with us in an effort toward mobilization.

Join Truth Action Project and push the conversation in a way that will make a difference.

By Spyder, Portland activist

Check out Russel Brand’s interview with Edward Snowden about how to think about ‘conspiracy theories.’

Check out this shorty from Russel Brand in his edited interview with Edward Snowden discussing the important topic of ‘conspiracy theories.’ God Bless Brand’s heart for speaking about a more just society and the need to mobilize for that possibility. He also invites the viewer to pay a fee to see the whole interview, but this snippet tells a big story.

Cynthia McKinney calls on members of the “truth” community to run for office.

Wow! I watched this 26 minute video from Cynthia McKinney in her address to the 9/11 Truth Community. She lays out a vision for change and suggests that the leadership could / should / come from the truth movement because “truthers’ understand the problem with our government and are willing to address what needs to be talked about. She lays out a very succinct explanation for why the truth community is the logical source for leadership (using ‘complexity leadership theory) to push the change that is necessary.

This is an amazing presentation. I consider myself her student after listening to this, and will advocate for Greens to recruit her to run for Green Party nomination for President in 2024; she has integrity of the deepest order, and is speaking truth to power.

If Greens want to grow our movement the party should align with the truth movement, which covers more ground than just the 9/11 events.

However, in this essay, is an argument that every party should be dedicated to the truth and so should have its own “Liberty Caucus” that would advocate for government and corporate accountability, transparency and whistleblower protections.

In the video, McKinney highlights 4 intellectuals that influenced her thinking. One of them coined the phrase: ‘state crimes against democracy.’ But from the four she weaves a coherent argument for taking back the state by promoting leadership from the Truth Movement and leveraging that talent.

McKinney is a Phd professor, and solid teacher, and I think is just what the Green Party and the country and the world needs. Greens should run a Shadow Cabinet that would be a media ploy for sure, but a Shadow Cabinet could issue critique, and mobilize support for the McKinney Presidency.

Watch the video and listen to what she says, then we should debate whether she is the best leader for the Greens, and others, to promote, assuming McKinney still wants to be associated with the Green Party. I haven’t talked with her about her willingness to seek the nomination. Maybe she would run as an independent, but she is definitely leadership material.

On 20th anniversary of September 11, 2001 attacks, mainstream media spins skeptics and doubters as blame for January 6 riots. Mainstream media covers up truth about ‘Big Lies.’

Activist laments: “We live in a bifurcated media universe that produces misinformation and false narratives with impunity.

A New York times opinion piece explains “how September 11 gave us January 6.” Other mainstream media have reported the same theme: Front Line, Washington Post, the Guardian. They have all issued media that blames the January 6 Capitol riot by right wing Trump followers on those who doubted the official story about 9/11.

The story goes that the ‘conspiracy theorists’ who have doubted the official explanation have sowed the seeds of conspiracy within the culture and this fostered a culture of disbelief, and this created the conditions for Trump followers to be manipu/lated with a ‘Big Lie’ to riot on the Capitol.

The theme is a semantic sleight of hand that acknowledges the skeptics of the official story, but it doesn’t give credence to those ideas, and makes no mention of Building #7, of course. It twists the claim of foreign terrorists attacking from abroad to domestic terrorists attacking from within.

However, the argument that September 11 “terrorism” begat domestic terrorism on January 6 is itself premised on the original lie of the false flag, that radical Muslims flew planes into the Towers and made the buildings collapse. It extends the skepticism about the 9/11 official story to the rioters, and notes that President Trump used doubts about the integrity of the election to make up the “Big Lie” of a ‘stolen election.

So, now on the 20th anniversary of 9/11, and what should be a time of serious discussion about what really happened, instead the media spins a narrative at conspiracy theorists, who refuse the official report and connect them with Trump followers. The doubters become conflated with the terrorists themselves, and thereby impugned as accomplices for being disloyal to the state, and the official narrative.

The Big Lie has become a way to keep our eyes off the cover up, so we don’t seek the truth about the 9/11. Especially important is to avoid any discussion about controlled demolition. Silence about this, and refusal to investigate, shows the malfeasance by government people, like Cheney and the Federal Attorneys General, John Ashcroft.

Indeed, it was a surprise to hear Speaker Pelosi actually use the term “Big Lie” to call out Trump. Because, by using the term she acknowledges that ‘Big Lies” are a problem. Ironically, it is a term the 9/11 truth community has used to discredit the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks. But now it is being used by the Dems to discredit, even impeach, a GOP President, but it sets the stage for a closing narrative to 9/11 twenty years ago.

We know what a “Big Lie” is; it is the term coined by the NAZI, Goebbels, used in his remarks about how to control the masses. Tell a big lie, one so big, it is crazy to think it isn’t possible.

I think it is true to say ‘The Donald’ deployed a Big Lie to run his people into a national security dragnet; he served as a pied piper and led people to a certain doom. He played his followers and fed them to the Federal lions, giving credence to the claim that the country faces a domestic security threat from the hard right.

Significantly, establishment figures like Nancy Pelosi are using language, invented by a NAZI, that she disingenuously won’t apply to 9/11. The 9/11 ‘official narrative’ is a ‘Big Lie’ that is evidenced by multiple details, but most tellingly, the Building 7 free-fall rate of collapse, obviously imploded, and covered up.

The cover up of the truth about September 11, 2001, is the Big Lie that should be discussed on the 20th anniversary, but it isn’t; an alternative narrative is being spun: this manipulation of media shows how we are in an Orwellian moment where language is ironically bent to make a lie into the truth, and news that should be informative, in fact manipulates thinking to foster acceptance of a lie.

It is conceivable to me that Trump approached his attack on the Capitol Building on January 6 with a level of hubris that would have him think: ‘I can tell a better Big Lie than the boys that did 9/11’. Indeed, Cheney et al are the best at what they do. And so it is with some odd coincidence that Cheney’s daughter is one of the few Republicans willing to investigate Trump’s Big Lie.

We should consider that Liz Cheney’s role is to prove that Trump told a Big Lie so he can be totally discredited and the cover up of the truth about 9/11 sustained. But ask Cheney about her father’s Big Lie, and you will hit the wall of silence.

Now more than ever we need to push for the truth about the September 11, 2001 attacks to challenge the impunity of the deep state to cover up crimes against our democracy.


“Opinion: False, toxic Sept. 11 conspiracy theories are still widespread today”

“The birth of a conspiracy theory; Trutherism emerged almost immediately after the attacks.”

“In a variety of polls in the first decade after 9/11, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to believe in Trutherism. In a 2006 Ohio University survey, 51 percent of Democrats signed on to some form of Trutherism, while only 18 percent of Republicans did the same. The survey is imperfect — it doesn’t include a “somewhat unlikely” option, and other polls show much higher percentages that “don’t know” — but it demonstrates that Trutherism had a solid foothold on the left.”

“Law professor Evan Laine and political economist Raju Parakkal of Thomas Jefferson University studied what drove so many Americans to subscribe to the conspiracy theories that Bush was behind the attacks.”

“Truther communities cropped up online and believers met at conferences across the country. A new class of “experts” also emerged. Fenster explained that academics such as physicist Steven Jones and theologian David Ray Griffin, as well as longtime conspiracy theorists including Alex Jones, made the case for Trutherism in books, broadcasts and lectures. Within a few years, an entire Trutherism industry had formed.”

“Trump and the changing face of Trutherism:
After Bush left office, conspiracy-theory enthusiasts found new obsessions, such as Obama’s birth certificate. But in 2016, amid the rise of Donald Trump (and eight years of Obama as president), Trutherism became more prevalent among Republicans.
By the time Trump took office, the partisan divide on Trutherism had nearly disappeared.”

“Meanwhile, Trump embraced conspiracy theories around election fraud, Obama’s citizenship and other topics. And, although Trump didn’t endorse Sept. 11 Trutherism specifically, he tiptoed around the edges of it and elevated leading Truthers such as Jones.”
“Conspiracy theories existed in both parties before Trump became the Republican standard-bearer. But Trump brought conspiratorial thinking into the mainstream, encouraging his followers — explicitly or implicitly — to trust no one else and follow him down the rabbit hole.” “A new forever conspiracy theory?”

“Twenty years on, Trutherism remains substantial. One in 6 Americans — including 19 percent of Democrats and 14 percent of Republicans — believe in some form of the conspiracy theory.”

“To be sure, Republicans are currently more supportive of dangerous conspiracy theories, such as election fraud and fear mongering about coronavirus vaccines. But the data on Trutherism shows there is an audience for conspiracy theories in both parties. A sizable subset of voters are prepared to believe things for which there is no evidence. America will have to cope with that for years to come.” “New books argue that lines can be drawn tracing the spread of disinformation on the internet and the direct challenge to democracy posed by Donald Trump and his supporters – culminating in the 6 January insurrection – all the way back to decisions taken in the febrile atmosphere that followed the attacks on New York and Washington two decades ago.” “The 1/6 terrorists breached the building the 9/11 terrorists could not. Both the 9/11 terrorists and the domestic 1/6 terrorists sought to destroy our democracy in service to a crazed ideology of intolerance.”

“The press, the ecosystem of donors, activists and operatives, and even, to an extent, the Democrats all treat Republicans as a normal political party within our democratic system, rather than as the enablers of a “foul spirit” and violent extremism. They shy away from labeling Republicans as “1/6 truthers” when the GOP’s effort to direct blame away from the actual terrorists is no better than claiming 9/11 was an inside job.”

“The media would be compelled to drop its false equivalence between the parties. We would, in short, reach the inevitable conclusion that today’s GOP operates outside of and is a threat to peaceful democratic governance and a multiracial democracy.” Brasscheck in 9 minute video shows how the “official” false narrative was laid down in national news reports within the first two hours of the 9/11 attacks.

Trump followers in Republican Party take leader’s tweet and oppose 1/6 Capitol Riot Commission legislation! GOP wants to avoid burden of defending riot going into 2022 electoral season. Covering for the Don.

Why is it important that we the people keep our eye on the chain of command that directed the Capitol invasion on January 6? Why is it important to wonder why the Capitol wasn’t guarded by the same armored robs-cops that the BLM protesters faced off with in the Summer before? Who gave the orders to have a diminished security on January 6th, the day of the Trump “stop the steal’ rally at the Ellipse?

Demanding a full accounting for the events of January 6 can help us understand what happened. Monitoring the progress of congressional hearings, and any appointment of an investigatory commission, is important for defending our democracy. Citizens need to know what happened so they can petition grievances and protest malfeasance.

Looking beyond just the role of Mr. Trump in instigating the riot, one of the significant outcomes of the January 6th Capitol Riot / ‘Insurrection’ is that domestic terrorism is now a national priority and state surveillance apparatus has been deployed to round up hundreds of the rioters; in addition, a domestic terrorism law has been brought before Congress; the Capitol remains enclosed behind by an ugly security perimeter, which reinforces fear.

This was the end game for the Capitol Riot, to put on display evidence of American right wing terrorism and pass new laws and appropriations. 

It appears as though Mr. Trump has functioned as a kind of pied piper to rally the hard right, gun loving activists into a trap. As an ironic reward for drinking the Trump Kool Aid / QAnon conspiracy, Trump followers got thrown under the bus, and the national security state establishment gets an opportunity to practice modern surveillance techniques and make a mass arrest, all in one fell swoop.

We can’t figure out if Mr. Trump is a leading participant in the operation to strengthen the hand of the security state, or if he was played for his reckless narcissism, or maybe there is a sick symbiosis between The Donald and the deep state, to stage an event that would rationalize increasing domestic security laws. We are not sure how to read it.

Nevertheless, without a doubt, Trump followers were duped into believing they were doing something meaningful for their leader, but in fact they were set up to take a fall. No sweeping pardon from the president, as many hoped. As a result, the state would have cause for a new round of domestic terrorism legislation similar to what was accomplished by the Patriot Act following the 9/11 event.

We need to ask ‘Cui bono,’ ‘who benefits,’ as a way to explain a motive, and construct a plausible explanation for what happened on January 6. What happened was not pure chance, an accident of events, but was a well planned riot. So, who are the winners and who the losers?

Based on numbers, the national security state is the actual winner. Now the FBI has arrested a number of rioters which requires each defendant to lawyer up; some will get public defenders, others private lawyers. But, the ranks of right wing militants have been seriously encumbered with legal woes. Will such woes reach up to the former president?

On the national security side of the ledger, proponents are advancing domestic terrorism legislation. Capitol police received over a billion dollars to retrofit security systems within the Capitol; but most significantly, the FBI now has a library of faces of de-facto trespassers, and more serious charges are being prepared for the ring leaders.The riot provided an opportunity to deploy modern digital forensic technology.

It remains to be seen if President Trump and his people who coordinated to help get the Jan. 6th event set up, will be prosecuted. So far, news reports highlight the arrest of frontline rioters but the media is silent about higher level personnel complicit in orchestrating the riot.

A shared script suggests coordination.

When the initial comments of the Capitol Police and Department of Army were reported, it revealed there was a shared language for a concern about the “optics” of national guard troops facing off with Trump supporters. That Capitol police chief and Department of Army initially used the same language to rhetorically spin the decision to not deploy troops as a concern with the ‘optics;’ shows coordination. The parroted line for ‘optics’ indicates a ‘script’ is being used and is a tell of a conspiracy to leave the Capitol perimeter unsecured so that the mob could break in easily.

Trump apologists are putting the blame for not posting National Guard on the morning of January 6 onto D.C. Mayor Bowser who in a letter to the Federal government objected to the heavy handed police tactics deployed in the summer and saying she did not want a repeat of that for the Trump rally. However, the January 4 memo from Assistant Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller limited National Guard to traffic duty and troops were forbidden to to face off with Trump followers, nor be equipped for riot control.

Miller told a congressional hearing that he was under orders from Mr. Trump to coordinate with Mayor Bowser and the Capitol Police regarding National Guard deployment. Miller denies he spoke with Mr. Trump on January 6th. However there was a hive of activity by lower level operatives.

Reporting posted on the Daily Kos examines the dithering to deploy National Guard troops at the Department of Defense and by Capitol police.

The report cites the curious connection that Mike Flynn’s brother, General Charles Flynn, is on hand at the time of deliberation suggesting a liaison to the White House and Department of Army. But there have been no reports that the Department of Army is being investigated, either by Congress or the FBI, for impeding the deployment of troops to secure the Capitol perimeter.

President Trump, is reported to have been pleased with the riot, giddily following the events closely on the TV after his speech at the Ellipse where he exhorted his followers about “going down to the Capitol” to ‘stop the steal. 

But he did not succeed in stoping the steal nor holding onto the White House since Mike Pence refused to participate. So, what was it all really about? Was it just Mr. Trump giving the Congress a figurative kick in the balls?

From our vantage point of hindsight, it appears that Mr. Trump has served the very deep state the QAnon conspiracy claimed he opposed. On top of Mr. Trump grifting a final haul of campaign cash based on his ‘stop the steal’ claim, he delivered to the FBI several hundred white supremacists that are now designated domestic terrorists.

It is clear to us at CT that the Capitol Riot was more political theater than a serious attempt at an insurrection. Was it a false flag? At least it was a riotous act of vandalistic contempt for American democratic tradition; and it is a false flag in that the Deep State has made use of Mr. Trump’s shenanigans. Those that trespassed into the Capitol may end up paying a serious price. But Trump followers were played so that the state could have a fresh purpose to empower domestic security law.

But how high up the chain of command will the investigation into what happened actually go?

Will we learn the truth if a 9/11 style commission is assigned to investigate? Raising concerns of a cover up, Speaker Pelosi’s invocation of the 9/11 Commission as a model method for discerning the truth is a warning that we will get the opposite.

We take it as a matter of fact that the 9/11 Commission served to obfuscate, to cover up the true crime and close the book on September 11, 2001. The 9/11 Commission, like the Warren Commission, issued a false report and for the Speaker to invoke it is a tell for what to expect: another cover up. 

However, the latest news indicates Mr. Trump is rallying his troops in the GOP to oppose a commission to investigate the 1/6 riot obviously concerned that it would endanger a Republican comeback in 2022.

Republicans clearly want to protect Mr. Trump and those that aided and abetted a weakened security perimeter act the Capitol. Indeed, MSM appears to be focusing attention on the corralling of the ring leaders of the riots but are stopping short of going to the top, to the Department of the Army and the White House.  

As things stand, President Trump is subject to at least two civil law suits for his role in instigating the riot on the Capitol, but no criminal charges have been filed. Meanwhile, a few hundred of his followers are being prosecuted. We’ll see what happens, but we will be surprised if anything sticks to The Donald for his role in planning and inciting the riot. If a commission is not formed, an investigation could be advanced from the Justice Department; or Congress could develop a spine, build a jail in its basement and hold hearings subject to subpoena and sworn testimony, and jail time if found in contempt of Congress. There are a lot of people in Trump’s inner circle that deserve to testify under oath in front of a congressional sub-committee.


A Washington Post news report shows Proud Boys leader cursing President Trump for setting up his group and others for mass arrest associated with the January 6 Capitol Building riot.


Others close to Mr. Trump, Kash Patel, have made a Trump threw me ‘ under the bus’ claim, as reported in the Vanity Faire article that ironically provides Mr. Trump with cover from claims he directly advanced the riot on the Capitol. The article is interesting in that it appears to provide an official explanation for the Trump White House about what its people were doing around the lead up to the January 6 event. It exonerates the President of any wrong doing as well as Chris Miller and Kash Patel. The author writes for the national security circuit and appears to have high level clearance.

The NY Times reports “the Capitol Police and the city’s Metropolitan Police had rebuffed offers days before for more help from the National Guard beyond a relatively modest contingent to provide traffic control, so no additional troops had been placed on standby. It took just over four hours for them to arrive.” The Times will report a number of variables contributed to lax security around the Capitol, but suggests Capitol Police is partially to blame.

The headline of this article from NY Times sums up what we should anticipate will be the official version for shy the Capitol Riot occurred: “Muddled Intelligence hampered response to Capitol Riot.” What the article is silent on are discussions between January 4 and day of on January 6, and the discussions between Department of the Army and the White House and decisions to withhold security from the Capitol. This article headline lays the blame for the Capitol Riot as the hands of multiple system failures on the part of domestic security apparatus; no mention of collusion at Pentagon on decision making; points to Muriel Bowser’s letter to feds about deploying overly militarized police in DC to deal with protesters. articles reports on Trump order to oppose commission to investigate Jan. 6.

Why a Commission will not work to reveal the truth of 1/6:

Frances Shure essay is a guide out of Plato’s Cave.

Wow! CT media team just got wind of France Shure’s dynamite essay on the psychology of the trauma of 9/11. This should be required reading.

Written clear back in 2013, in Why do Good People Become Silent-or worse-about 9/11?, Shure answers, citing many psychological studies and historical facts, to show how and why the country has been traumatized into silence.

Our democracy depends on a critical mass of the public to demand investigations and to stand up for the truth. The 1960’s assassinations and the 9/11 events were all inside jobs, state crimes against democracy (SCAD). The country has been in a state of trauma since WWII and our thinking has been conditioned by manipulations to the mainstream press by national security deep state operators.

The audience for Shure’s essay are the already initiated in the truth about SCAD. However, if one would approach the essay with an open but skeptical mind, you will gain a wealth of knowledge and understanding about how our thinking and feelings are determined by variables beyond our control. Only with a concerted and concentrated examination of history, can we develop the discernment power to see through the lies and misinformation. Shure’s essay is filled with historical citations.

We invite readers to comment on our ongoing blog series deconstructing what Shure says. 

We are reminded of Plato’s allegory of the cave; people, Plato explained, are like prisoners with hands tied behind their backs, and all they can perceive is the shadows from the fire on the walls; the shadows are the reality to the prisoners, and not until escorted by the guide to the outside do they understand their reality view was false.

Shure’s essay is a guide out of the cave. It is like Morpheus to Neo in the Matrix. The true reality is harsh, indeed unspeakable, but it our destiny to gently nudge the nation to talk about 9/11, and demand accountability.

We encourage reading this essay and talking about it with members of your community; organize a book club around the essay; use the book as a psychological journey into self awareness of how our thinking has been formed. Let the book galvanize you into action. Speak truth to power.

Here is a link from 9/11 Truth that is about Fran Shure and what drew her to investigate the truth of the September 11 attacks.

The conspiracy that killed Soul!

We here at CT stand in solidarity with the African American community to get justice for state crimes against black culture and black access to power. We support claims for reparations from Feds for diminishment of prosperity by the unethical termination of Soul! President Nixon conspired with his lieutenants to kill the show. But Wikipedia doesn’t tell you this, shame on them.

The CT media team saw the documentary Ellis Haizlip, Mr. Soul! The show was a black run entertainment variety show that was cutting, raw and totally authentic. It was produced by African Americans, for African Americans, but it was also a way for white society to experience the joy of being black. It is a beautiful documentary produced by Ellis’s daughter Melissa Haizlip.

We did a quick history on Wikipedia and learned the show “first aired on 9/12/68… The show lasted until March 7, 1973.” Wikipedia made no mention of the reason or cause for the show to be terminated. This omission of a conspiracy theorem / fact demonstrates a way knowledge of history is controlled.

In any case, the film ends with historic tape recordings from the Nixon White house Oval Office meeting of President Nixon and his lieutenants plotting to kill the show. Indeed, months later the contract was not renewed and the show ended. Another lynching. Another assassination except it was against an economic / cultural enterprise; it was another Tulsa without the fire and blood. But, at the heart of the demise of the show was a conspiracy by the president to shut down black culture and the radical messages the show put out.

We here at CT stand in solidarity with the African American community to get justice for state crimes against black culture and democratic institutions.

The BBC commits journalistic malfeasance; won’t tell the truth about who is the most dishonest president.

Dear Reader,

The BBC news report titled who “truly is the most dishonest president,” was very interesting The central focus is on presidential mendacity involving dissembling, lying, fibbing, eliding, making false statements, whatever you want to call it.

Conspiracy Theorem is interested in how the media produces narratives that serve to condition popular thinking around controversial topics involving national security state / deep state, operations.

The BBC report is an example of how ‘misinformation’ is produced; it demonstrates the limits to which the reader may go relative to examining presidential mendacity; but significantly, the BBC article disassociates through omission, the deep state apparatus that was lied about in all cases reviewed in the article.

Even so, the article is compelling, it lulls the reader into accepting presidential mendacity as normal; the article normalizes presidential mendacity but doesn’t explore efforts to hold presidents to account for their lying.

The article lulls the reader into feeling some mercy toward the liars, after all it is what people in power do. Is this its purpose and goal? But if one reads critically and draws on background knowledge of history, historical facts, then one is not lulled by this article but is incited to call out the article for its omissions.

One thing we do as readers, is, we predict, or anticipate where a story may go; and so naturally, our attention perked up to the question, “who truly is the worst president?”

Because we know about the John F. Kennedy assassination, and we doubt, as 85% of those polled on the question doubt, that the Warren Commission Report is true, indeed, the report is a big fat lie. So naturally, we would call Lyndon Baines Johnson out on his mendacity around covering up and going along with the big lie of the JFK assassination. (Please read our views on the JFK and the 9/11 story at the links in the CT button).

Johnson inherited the presidency from his assassinated predecessor, but did nothing in his power to enable the truth about the assassination to be revealed. Johnson engaged in and supported the cover up of an assassination that was a national security operation conducted by American citizens. This fact is taboo and cannot be discussed in mainstream  media. Johnson is complicit in a terrible lie.

Our second vote for worse president for lying would be George Bush, Jr. for his role in supporting the ‘big lie’ of the September 11 attacks, and even of the subsequent anthrax attack on two Democratic Party Senators, the passage of the Patriot Act, and all the lies that are foundational the the 9/11 false narrative. The BBC story is silent on this just as it is with JFK assassination. Bush Jr. is credited with the lie of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ that led up the the Gulf War, dethronement of Saddam Hussein.

We encourage reading the full BBC article; it is meaningful and interesting for what it omits, which makes it compelling, and for a reader that doesn’t read with a critical eye for conspiracy theorems, then the reader will conclude that all president’s lie; that it is, politically speaking, a natural thing to do. That it is normal.

After all, President Polk’s lie about Mexicans attacking Americans on American soil, is a lie a huge majority of Americans supported, and it increased the size of the USA by 1/3; that was a pretty good lie, some might reason. To Abraham Lincoln’s credit, he called Polk’s claim a lie but was in the moral minority and this did not keep him from assuming the presidency.

Background information on a topic is necessary for discerning fact from fiction. If one didn’t know that the Warren Commission Report is a lie, and that the September 11, 2001 Commission, the 9/11 Commission, issued a cover up report as well, then one would finish the BBC article feeling pretty good about things; after all, all presidents lie, as a matter of national security they must, but that it is a relatively normal thing to do. 

And the way the mainstream press has treated President Trump, the most audacious liar of all, at least, the BBC credits, The Donald didn’t get the US into any significant war. So, is lying wasn’t so bad, relatively speaking. 

In closing, the article relativizes lying. Presidential mendacity is relative to the time and place, the events of the day, the foreign policy problem that needs to be solved; the article obfuscates by omitting to discuss the real serious cases of lying that involve deep state malfeasance. By omitting the ‘elephant in the room’ of deep state actors, and military industrial complex agents. the mainstream media commits the sin of journalistic malfeasance, not advancing the truth, covering up the back story.

We have been warned about what the BBC story does; it conditions our thinking. But the back story to that is that the CIA has a network of professionally engaged, corporate leadership, (Project Mockingbird) that feeds the narrative for what is permissible to be aired and printed in the mainstream media. Check out our links to Ed Curtin and Rod Driver in prior blog posts.

This BBC article is an example of the permitted narrative that makes us feel like we are getting a full and accurate account of the question: “who is truly the most dishonest president…” as though that is the important question to be asking.


Below is the full article, for your reading convenience:

Who truly was the most dishonest president

Jude Sheerin – BBC, Washington

Sat, March 6, 2021, 6:02 PM·9 min read

Former President Donald Trump was often accused of having a complete disregard for the truth. Yet some of his predecessors’ falsehoods ranged from the bizarre to the horrifying. So how does Trump truly compare?

When Saddam Hussein invaded the oil-rich emirate of Kuwait in August 1990, President George HW Bush snarled: “This will not stand.”

But as US troops were scrambled to the Gulf, the American public was dubious about the justification for military action.

The Kuwaiti government-in-exile promptly hired a US public relations firm, Hill & Knowlton, whose Washington DC office was run by Bush’s former chief of staff.

The PR firm coached a purported witness, introduced as a 15-year-old girl called “Nayirah”, to tearfully tell US congressmen in October 1990 that Iraqi soldiers had entered a hospital in Kuwait, removed babies from incubators and left them to die on the cold floor.

Nayirah, reporters were assured, was using an assumed name for fear of reprisals against her family back home.

Only after the war would it emerge she was the daughter of Kuwait’s ambassador to the US. And her story was completely baseless, as John MacArthur details in his book, Second Front, Censorship and Propaganda in the 1991 Gulf War.

Bush is recorded as having publicly touted this tall tale at least six times as he blew the bugle of war.

“Babies pulled from incubators and scattered like firewood across the floor,” the president said on one occasion during a speech to US troops in Saudi Arabia.

MacArthur writes that the hoax helped rally the American people behind calls for military action.

In January 1991, Bush’s war resolution narrowly passed the Senate. Six senators cited the incubators story as justification for authorising the conflict, notes MacArthur.

Operation Desert Storm launched days later.

The irony is that it seems babies actually did perish after being removed from incubators during Gulf War One. Only it reportedly happened in a massive US-led allied air raid.

On the first night of bombing, as electricity failed amid the explosions, panicking mothers took their newborns from the machines at a paediatric hospital in Baghdad and sheltered in a cold basement where more than 40 of the infants died, according to a contemporary New York Times report.

They were among thousands of civilians estimated killed in the 42-day conflict.

While it has never been established that Bush knew the incubators story he repeatedly told was unfounded, the White House is generally expected to verify claims made by the president – especially one so horrifying.

American journalists failed to debunk the Nayirah testimony until after the war. The controversy was omitted from a recent admiring biography of Bush, and from glowing coverage of his presidency when he died in 2018.

Allegations of presidential dishonesty, however, greatly exercised media fact-checkers during the tenure of Mr Trump.

The Washington Post maintains a database of Trump statements – over 30,000 of them – that it claims are false or misleading.

Some of the remarks flagged by the newspaper – such as that the American economy was the best ever under his presidency, or that he passed the biggest tax cut in US history, or about the size of the trade deficit with China – Trump is recorded as having made hundreds of times.

Many of these utterances, such as about golf or his wealth or whether it snowed at one of his rallies, sound relatively trifling.

Others, such as claims he deliberately misled the American people about the severity of coronavirus, or his unfounded assertions that the 2020 White House election was rigged, would be much more damaging.

Benjamin Ginsberg, author of The American Lie: Government by the People and Other Political Fables, says that when it comes to presidential falsehoods, some are much more consequential than others.

He cites deceptive statements by Bush’s son, President George W Bush, as he sold a sequel war on Iraq to the US public.

These included downplaying intelligence doubts that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, and implying he might even have a nuclear weapon, and asserting he was an ally of al-Qaeda.

Prof Ginsberg says “whoppers” that lead to military action are the most harmful of all, and that Trump is not as blame-worthy as some of his predecessors in this respect.

The political science lecturer at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore adds: “The problem is the American presidential selection process is fundamentally flawed and produces monsters.

“It requires years of campaigning, and only the most arrogant, ambitious and narcissistic individuals would possibly be willing to do such a thing.”

Once upon a time Americans placed an almost childlike trust in their commanders-in-chief.

They were venerated as demigods.

When did it change?

Many historians date this rupture to Lyndon Baines Johnson, though he was far from the first president to deceive.

JFK’s brother, Robert Kennedy, once said of LBJ: “He just lies continually about everything. He lies even when he doesn’t have to lie.”

Johnson’s falsehoods on the Vietnam War included using an August 1964 naval attack that never happened in the Gulf of Tonkin to dramatically escalate the conflict.

“We are not about to send American boys nine or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves,” he told voters two months later in Akron, Ohio.

After being elected, LBJ quietly sent the first US combat forces to the jungles and rice paddies of the war zone, eventually deploying more than half a million troops.

Johnson’s constant dissembling about this foreign policy disaster envenomed American political life and led journalists to coin a euphemistic term about his administration: the credibility gap.

His successor, Richard Nixon, ran for office pledging to bring an “honourable” end to the carnage in Vietnam, before expanding the conflict by secretly carpet-bombing neutral Cambodia.

Yet it was another cover-up – the Watergate scandal, a botched burglary by his henchmen to wiretap their political opponents – that destroyed Nixon’s presidency.

American children were once taught to tell the truth with the aid of a morality tale on presidential honesty that was itself untrue.

“I can’t tell a lie, Pa,” is the well-known line from the story about the young George Washington confessing to his father that he had split his cherry tree with a hatchet.

It was entirely invented by the president’s first biographer.

The father of the nation was in fact not above the odd fib himself.

In 1788, he attempted to rewrite history by claiming he had been the strategic visionary behind the victory over the British at Yorktown seven years earlier during the Revolutionary War.

But it was actually his French allies who masterminded the decisive battle in Virginia.

Washington had been stubbornly arguing instead for an attack on New York City, as Ron Chernow notes in his 2010 biography of the first US commander-in-chief.

Here was the original sin, if you will, of presidential duplicity.

Some lies told by occupants of the White House have been utterly bizarre.

Thomas Jefferson told a European naturalist who had disparaged the New World’s fauna that woolly mammoths roamed the unexplored American West.

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan claimed he had filmed the atrocities of the Nazi death camps while serving as a US Army Signal Corps photographer in Europe.

He told this story to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir at the White House.

Reagan never left America during World War Two. Few remember this mind-boggling lie.

Many of Trump’s comments in the Washington Post catalogue will no doubt prove equally forgettable.

However, one historian argues that the recent tenant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, by the sheer volume of his mendacity, has destroyed the very idea of shared truth in American politics.

“We’ve tolerated presidential lies ever since the beginning of the republic,” says Professor Eric Alterman, author of Lying In State: Why Presidents Lie – And Why Trump Is Worse.

“But Donald Trump is the Frankenstein’s monster of a political system that has not merely tolerated lies from our leaders, but has come to demand them.”

Prof Alterman says the Capitol rioters, radicalised by conspiracy theories about stolen elections and satanic cabals, underscore the extent to which Trump inspired the “creation of an entire world of unreality”.

A useful civics lesson on how a president who has been caught dissimulating reacts away from the cameras may be found in William Jefferson Clinton.

In January 1998 he indignantly denied to reporters having had any sexual relations with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.

But an investigation into whether he had lied under oath heard graphic evidence of their frolics, including that the president used a cigar with her as a sex toy after inviting the 22-year-old into the Oval Office.

Instead of feeling shame for deceiving the nation, Clinton privately expressed relief, according to John F Harris’ biography, The Survivor.

Even as he prepared to go on television in August 1998 and express contrition, the president told a close friend: “The lie saved me.”

Clinton reasoned that the drip-drip of prurient allegations had allowed the American people to gradually come to terms with his antics, ultimately sparing his political neck.

It’s all a rueful reminder of the blessing carved into the mantel of the White House State Dining Room:

“May none but Honest and Wise Men ever rule under This Roof.”

When presidents misspeak

  • Mexico “has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil” – James Polk in his 1846 war message to Congress, about an attack he had provoked in what was actually disputed territory
  • “Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt to voters in 1940, even as he flexed his political muscles to confront Nazi Germany. Arguably a morally defensible presidential lie
  • “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base” – Harry Truman in 1945, but the target was actually a city and most of the 140,000 or so people who died were civilians
  • Dwight Eisenhower approved statements claiming an American U-2 spy plane shot down by the Soviets in 1960 was just a weather research aircraft, later acknowledging this was a lie and his “greatest regret”
  • “No-one in the White House staff, no-one in this Administration, presently employed, was involved in this very bizarre incident” – Richard Nixon in 1972 on Watergate
  • “A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not” – Ronald Reagan in 1987 on the Iran-Contra scandal
  • “We’ve removed an ally of al-Qaeda and… no terrorist network will gain weapons of destruction from the Iraqi regime because the regime is no more” – George W Bush in 2003
  • “If you like your healthcare plan, you’ll keep your healthcare plan, period” – Barack Obama in 2013, rated Lie of the Year by PolitiFact

Michael Parenti provides a hard hitting expose of the JFK assassination: Defending the Gangster State; read the excerpt

Wow! Michael Parenti is hard hitting. We stand in solidarity with his commitment to telling the truth and he does so in this except from his book Dirty Truths, published in 1996.

Here is a link to Michael Parenti’s discussion of the JFK assassination and the national security state operators who did the deed. 

Interestingly, Parenti cites a source who claims 85% of Americans do not accept the official Warren Commission Report. So what really happened we should ask. Further showing his writing chops, Parenti gives a riveting account of Oswald’s background as a military figure, and the improbability of Oswald pulling the trigger. Another fun fact, of the 600 books that have been written on the JFK assassination, 80% attribute the killing to deep state operatives; 20% stick with the Oswald lone gunman theory, or a mix that includes mafia, or some other actors.

Conspiracy Theorem likes the Unspeakable Project.

To our delight, we found The Unspeakable Project in the course of reading an essay by Ed Curtin, a voice for truth and political freedom.

Inspired by the incisive and truth telling book by James Douglas, JFK and the Unspeakable: why his death matters, the Unspeakable Project provides support for activists to promote the truth of the 1960’s assassinations through public and private readings, scripts provided.

Increasingly we are hearing from others in the movement who give a reasoned consideration of the question: what if the leaders killed in the 1960’s were not assassinated, but were able to live full and productive lives?

Here at Conspiracy Theorem we can imagine a very different society: one where we would not have experienced an endless series of wars, and coup d’etat; we also imagine the problems of human population growth, excessive use of fossil fuels that has led to global warming would have been attended to in the 1970’s, when the risks became known. Instead, the power structure was able to act with impunity and its malfeasance has led to cataclysmic change in climate patterns. It is clear to us that if the 1960’s assassinations had not occurred, a very different path would have been taken.

The Unspeakable Project provides a forum for reclaiming possibilities that were dashed by agents of the American national security state: members fo the CIA, the US Military, the FBI and even the president’s own guard, the Secret Service. It is all too horrible to consider, but look into it we must.

We post this message to highlight and amplify the good work of the Unspeakable Project. We the people need to demand investigations and justice and reparations that would include the dismantlement of the military industrial complex that has been built up since after WW II, as the final measure of justice.

We hope the Unspeakable Project might lead us to make the global call for peace that was foundational to Thomas Merton’s plea to the elites to choose humanity over war.

Here is a you tube link to an Unspeakable Project public event

Conspiracy Theorem hails Watching Hawks episode featuring Jesse V. on JFK.

Watching Hawks in this episode, see link above, features Jesse Ventura and other guest pick apart latest piece of misinformation of the John F. Kennedy assassination. One guest explains how silly the latest “conspiracy theory” of the JFK assassination is, written by ex-CIA chief, Woolsey. Meanwhile, Ventura speaks eloquently about the sad fate of President Kennedy and discusses what history could have been like if Kennedy lived to win another 4 years. This was not to be. As a consequence of the JFK assassination, the military industrial complex became ascendant, top power player in the power structure.

Our argument here at Conspiracy Theorem is that history would have taken the country on a different path if Kennedy survived. We encourage viewing the episode with Jesse simply to see him speak truth to power.

It is refreshing and good for America that RT features programs such as Watching Hawks. We stand in solidarity with this call for a just democracy and an end to militarism.

Conspiracy Theorem likes Ed Curtin.

Conspiracy Theorem likes Ed Curtin. Curtin is an advocate for the truth and calling out the national security state when it commits malfeasance. He has signed the petition calling on Congress to conduct a truth commission on the 1960’s assassinations. As we have said, we don’t believe that we the people can claim our path in history without calling out the government malfeasance. Curtin understands the difficulty of the task and offers words to help us make sense of our collective predicament. We highly encourage reading Ed Curtin.

Here is a link to Curtin’s archive of essays at Global Research; thank you Canada.

Here is a link to a book review Curtin writes about Robert F. Kennedy and why he needed to be killed; very interesting and compelling. 

Here is a link to a reflection on Martin Luther King and the national holiday made in his name.

Here is a link to his book review on JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglas.

Conspiracy Theorem likes Rod Driver: how do I know if I am being brainwashed?

We the activist collective at CT like Rod Driver. We discovered him surfing the web and found his archive of articles at Global Research.

Driver is important because he provides a clear and articulate and logical and plausible explanation and discussion for how our thinking gets conditioned and why it happens. Warning, he uses terms like Deep State. Discerning fact from fiction is difficult in a world where so much is at stake.

We like this article about how propaganda works on our thinking. It is a great place to start.

Here is a convenient link to Driver’s articles at Global Research; thank god for Canada.

Book Review: JFK and the Unspeakable: why his death matters.

JFK and the Unspeakable: why he died and why it matters: by James W. Douglass (2008): Book Review

Why should we care about knowing the truth about JFK’s assassination?

A poll that got a headline on Yahoo News reports that 75% of those polled do not believe the official criminal theory that JFK’s assassination was the work of a lone gunman: namely, Lee Harvey Oswald.  Significantly, only 25% of Americans believe the Warren Commission report, a vast 8 volume set that rationalizes Arlen Specter’s famous single bullet, single gunman ‘anti-conspiracy-theory’ theory.

Shouldn’t this collective doubt alone be grounds for a new, transparent investigation of JFK’s assassination?

In JFK and the Unspeakable: why he died and why it matters (2008), author James W. Douglas avails himself of the most recent revelations of the plot to kill Kennedy and provides one of the most plausible explanations for JFK’s assassination. The unspeakable is the suggestion that agents of the American security state establishment; namely, the CIA and the FBI, and the Secret Service killed the president. 

While Douglas does not build a definitive criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt), for the conspirators in JFK’s murder, this book definitely shows by a a preponderance of evidence that government agents were negligent in JFK’s death.

After reading this book, the reader is left with a preposterous but plausible explanation for Kennedy’s assassination. Essentially, the author puzzles out a motive and cover-up by government actors to show how Kennedy threatened the growth and development and policy objectives of what Eisenhower famously warned about: the danger of the military / industrial complex to American democracy.

Douglas’s analysis paints President Kennedy’s assassination as a result of Kennedy’s failure to stay on course with the national security state leaders, then led by Allen Dulles; Dulles was fired by Kennedy but was later brought back into government to act as an executive director of the Warren Commission and oversee the crafting of the Warren Commission report. 

Kennedy, Douglas shows, embraced the possibility of peace in the world and sought to scale back, or temper the Cold War fever endemic among the Chiefs of Staff, the CIA and FBI.

The notion that Kennedy was a friend of the peace movement is not how he is most often portrayed; instead, though heralded as from “Camelot”, he is often portrayed as a hawk and as the one responsible for getting us into the Vietnam War.

To re-brand Kennedy as a peace president, Douglas opens his analysis with a discussion of Thomas Merton, a Trappist Monk and peace advocate who was in correspondence with members of the American elite about pursuing peace given the development of the nuclear bomb and its horrible implications.

The author provides a meticulous review of events in a multiple time frame structure, but uses Merton’s call for peace as a backdrop of Kennedy’s intellectual milieu. Kennedy personally experienced the horror of war, but as president stood on the brink of nuclear annihilation and had to balance his personal views with a military establishment pushing for a first nuclear strike against Russia that would lead to millions of people dying on both sides.

One poignant take away from this revision of the Kennedy presidency as one orienting toward “not war,” is that Kennedy’s assassination then put policy on a certain “yes war” path. His death robbed the country of an alternative historical trajectory that could have put the United States on a less bellicose course than was carried out in the Vietnam War and has followed the 9/11 attacks.

Kennedy wanted to avoid nuclear war, and he saw the possibility of peace as the logical path to follow. To this end, Kennedy sought private channels for talks with Kruschev and Fidel Castro because he didn’t trust the establishment staff; to further alienate the war hawks, Kennedy sought to negotiate settlements with nationalist leaders from post-colonial countries versus waging covert war against communist opponents as was the practice.

Douglas shows how Kennedy’s experience in war tempered his attitude about it, and how his intellectual life enabled him to appreciate the absolute horror a nuclear war conjured up, but these dispositions destined him to be at odds with his State Department, Joint Chiefs of Staff, CIA, and even the Secret Service. Horrible and preposterous as this sounds, the President was betrayed by his own people.

JFK and the Unspeakable dishes up a number of eye-popping revelations that plausibly review the complicated plot that brought down the president. The total truth cannot ever be known because most of the perpetrators have died of old age and taken the truth to the grave. However, the author provides a virtual indictment of key individuals across multiple departments of government that makes a solid case for a government conspiracy to kill the president, and cover up the plot.

Douglas provides extensive footnotes to document his review of motives for and the events preceding and following the assassination.

But what is the reader to do with a book that takes you to the edge of the moral abyss and exposes you to an unspeakable horror, the same horror that reared its ugly head in the 9/11 attacks? And why does JFK’s death matter?

The author hopes a peace movement might develop that picks up where Kennedy left off in 1963. Indeed, foundational to the premise of JFK and the Unspeakable is a speech Kennedy gave to the graduating class at the American University in which he calls for peace, nuclear disarmament, respect for national movements in post-colonial countries, and unilaterally announces that the U.S. would cease atmospheric testing of hydrogen bombs (up to which time the U.S. had exploded 70 in the south pacific. 

This speech shows Kennedy’s peace credentials, but also highlights the collision course he was on with agents of the national security state.

To honor Kennedy and get justice for his assassination, a peace movement must demand accountability of the government with an independent and transparent investigatory commission that would have access to all relevant information to reveal the truth about JFK’s murder, and the events of 9/11.

In writing this book about JFK, Douglas quietly invokes Ghandi’s non-violent call for a revolution that would build a world at peace, and by implication, drive governments to marshal all necessary resources to repair the earth and affirm the dignity of human-kind as eco-stewards of the earth; this vision, antithetical to the objectives and interests of the military / industrial complex, lies at the heart of understanding JFK.

Book Review: An Act of State by William Pepper

William Pepper befriended Martin Luther King after King read a Ramparts Magazine article in 1967 about atrocities in the Vietnam War. Pepper’s report moved Dr.King to take a more critical stance against the war and later lead him to call for a Poor People’s Movement, fusing two currents of at a time of revolutionary change.

In An Act of State, William Pepper, a radical human rights lawyer,  tells the story of engaging with the King family to uncover the truth around King’s murder.

MLK’s assassination was a profound shock to Pepper, which at the time, drove him away from the public activism, to professional work, but he would return to the crime scene, almost 12 years later, on behalf of the King family to try to get James E. Ray a new trial.

Ray claimed his innocence within three days of his guilty plea; Pepper’s investigation makes the case that Ray was set up as a patsy to make the state’s case of a lone gunman assassin; but Pepper’s counter narrative is that there was a conspiracy and it was an act of state, which describes the thesis of King’s assassination. To exonerate Ray, Pepper needed to convince a jury an of alternative explanation for what happened.

As a way to build public interest for a new trial for Ray, Pepper conducted a mock trial of the King assassination on BBC television. Though Pepper was never able to secure Ray a new trial, who died in jail in 1998, the King family did sue Lloyd Jowers …, who implicated himself as a result of the BBC TV production. 

Lloyd Jowers was mentioned as a suspect, given witnesses saw him handle a rifle reportedly used in the crime. Jowers was the landlord for the short term room rental from which Ray is alleged to have shot King.

To deflect his role as the actual assassin, Lloyd Jowers went on ABC and said to Sam Donaldson that he participated in the assassination and knew who the assassin was. 

The King family sued Lloyd Jowers and through the case, Pepper demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that Ray did not kill King, and that more plausibly it was a conspiracy of local and federal law enforcement. They won a $100.00 financial award from Jowers, and the King family was satisfied with a revelation of a conspiracy.

In Pepper’s account, there were a lot of people involved in the assassination: local mafia, local police, FBI and Military Intelligence / assassin teams that would be used as a back up if the primary assassin team of local people failed; it’s complicated.

William Pepper has two other titles about the King assassination, A Plot to Kill King, and Order to Kill, which provide credible and plausible explanation for what happened and why it happened. 

In a nutshell, Ray was framed, and an elaborate plot was engineered; there were insiders in the Civil Rights Movement who are alleged to have aided and abetted the assassination, and there has been the ongoing cover up that involves misinformation and assassination. Pepper reports a fascinating story of deceit and intrigue, as he pieces together the bits and shards of evidence, much of it second hand.

Pepper tells the story of how King matured as a social political activist from his days in the 1950’s and early 1960’s. It was a great triumph for the movement when President Johnson signed into law in 1965 the Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Acts. But King kept moving forward and wanted more reforms.

In 1967 King delivered his famous speech condemning the Vietnam War and it was a shot across the bow for the establishment. King exhibited a willingness to branch out from civil and voting rights to more radical and contentious issues like opposing war (the military industrial complex, and opposing systemic impoverishment of people of color. Some in the movement thought King betrayed a tacit agreement to not get too “uppity” and to not as for too much, like ending a war.

When I think about the 1960’s assassinations including John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X and Robert F. Kennedy, I wonder how history would have unfolded if these great leaders were not killed. It is easy to imagine that the geo-political affairs of an imperial American power would have have been brought to heel under an anti-militarism policy and a pro-social justice movement. This was certainly King’s destiny.

Indeed, it is possible to imagine if the four assassinated leaders lived a full life, that great arc of a just history that King confidently believed was available to humankind, might have, could have unfolded.

Perhaps the highlight of An Act of State is Chapter 10, which is a discussion into King’s philosophy about change and where he was willing to go, and the implication of this for his fate. But it should inform our thinking today about where we should be as a movement and the stance we need to take to achieve the chang: King’s vision.

Pepper eloquently recites King’’s philosophy of anti-materialism and a deep humanism that would oppose the relentless drive into a consumeristic, materialistic society that would prove antagonistic to basic principles of dignity for all, and a pursuit of a just society.

To highlight some of the text from Chapter 10: A Vision unto Death, a Truth beyond the Grave; Pepper observes: King, he says, “inherited a dehumanized society…where all values are reduced to market values and market prices…King confronted societies’ ‘insatiable quest for money and material consumption’…as the growth of corporate power parallels the increasing dominance of materialism, the movement for community control and localization becomes the natural reaction to the process of society dehumanization that Martin King sought to reverse.”

“Underlying the Poor People’s Campaign was a goal of empowering people in their communities to create a better life in balance with nature…and…becoming part of the woodier world as zones of accountability and responsibility, which they manage themselves.”

King saw a problem of the “dominance of western materialism…” He saw the “insatiable quest for money…” and juxtaposed that with the “Poor People’s Campaign” as a ‘revolutionary undertaking’ to counteract the pursuit of money with the pursuit of social justice.

King further challenged members of his own faith by calling Christianity a ‘religion of materialism,’ and criticized it for undermining the world’s tribal people, ‘across five continents, over five centuries and enabled the Europeans to achieve world domination of global resources.”

King scathingly denounces European culture as carrying the “materialistic torch” that ‘caused deaths of hundreds of millions…’ His critique of European culture saw it as a “materially advanced technological society running away from…Judeo / Christian heritage…’ Pepper goes on to observe the “the military industrial complex…[King saw it] as violating American cultural heritage by making USA greatest purveyors of violence on the planet…” Poignantly, King prophesied that the growth of militarism would cause the end of democracy…”

In King’s view…”the only alternative to disaster was to promote the perception of the oneness of humankind over the public policies of the nation…”

King aligned explicitly with Ghandi’s vision for change through civil disobedience  and he aligned with Ghandi’s humanitarian sensibility which Pepper traces to a philosopher named John Ruskin, a critic living in the UK.

Pepper notes that by 1967, no national leader had emerged to lead the anti-war effort until MLK made his view known. As a warning to the Establishment, a largely white demonstration involving 200,000, mostly middle class protestors, converged on the Pentagon, encircling it, and this presaged what would happen in Washington DC with a Poor People’s Campaign.

King was “attempting to confront the core issue of economic injustices running in American Society…” which included protesting the War in Vietnam and the growth of militarism.”

This “new struggle brought MLK into direct conflict with the Federal Government and its numerous agency surrogates…[serving]…corporate interests.”

King’s movement, Pepper observes, was more ‘akin to a class revolution  than an anti-colonial struggle…” and for this reason, King’s destiny was cut short, as an ‘act of state.’

So, what are we the readers supposed to do with the knowledge that our government, or surrogates of our government, national security state agents, killed an American citizen endeavoring to affect a social revolution?

Well for one, we should accept that the attack on King and others in the 1960’s was a counter-revolution conducted by agents of the state; we need to accept that in effect historical possibilities were denied by the assassinations. Justice means reclaiming history, forcing accountability with truth commissions, and demanding a reparation toward the peace dividend we should have gotten.

We then need to call for the same thing King was calling for…as a way to redeem King’s vision, and give King’s vision the same currency today it had when he was killed; and continue to move forward, as a movement,  from where he left off…because since King’s assassination, things have only gotten worse in terms of our society descending into materialism and militarism. Society has degraded since King’s death. Let’s go back, figuratively speaking, and set things right.