Friday, December 29, 2006

Mad Conspiracy Theories vs. Rational Inquiry

I have no idea what exactly happened on 9/11. How could I -- I am groping around in a dark room trying to figure it out.

Why? Because the government's story is absurd. If you think the lights are on and you can see fine about 9/11, then with all due respect, you are still being deceived by the government's ludicrous conspiracy theory. More on that below.

The burden of proving the government's story wrong is not on citizens, who have a right to have the law enforced by their public servants. It is not for me or any other citizen to explain what exactly happened. We are forced as citizens to research this issue as best we can, because of officialdom's complicity or cowardly acquiescence in the official conspiracy theory.

Some citizens have learned to work quite well in the dark. By 2003 at the latest, they had developed and published the basis for criminal investigations. These people, which include Gerard Holmgren, Jared Israel, Rosalee Grable, Jeff King, and Nico Haupt, developed many of the facts now being selectively published, often without attribution, by those who entered the field after it became safe to question 9/11. Gerard Holmgren is perhaps the best and most comprehensive of these original researchers, and his work credits and hyperlinks to others' work.

If you want to quit groping around in the dark, which you must be doing if you have the mind to recognize the obvious lies and the heart to care, I think this essay by Gerard Holmgren is a great place to start your serious consideration of the 9/11 crimes:

Watch out for Mad! Conspiracy Theories: Paranoid Fantasies About 9/11
By Gerard Holmgren

When you are done laughing, and grinding your teeth, read this :

Manufactured Terrorism - The Truth About Sept 11
By Gerard Holmgren

Mr. Holmgren suggests starting with the second of these, but the first is a good way to get your critical faculties going, and the first shows that those with the burden of proof have told an absurd story. It is an ironically entertaining read as well, and as close to funny as you can get when talking about mass murder.

His entire website should be read by any serious researcher, and properly cited. It is my hope that brave and honest politicians, prosecutors, and law enforcement officials will read this website and do something about the 9/11 crimes. I still have hope our republic is not so far gone that the "Mad Conspiracy Theory" described by Holmgren stands as "history," and not so far gone that the horrific and ongoing 9/11 crimes go unpunished.

Start at his home page, which explains all the materials on his website:

The "disinformation" section is directed more at the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement," and has some very interesting writing. Congressman and prosecutors with subpoena power shouldn't have to bother with this internal mess, but "Disinformation and the art of Critical Thinking" is a good and quick read to understand what citizen researchers have had to put up with while the authorities ignored 9/11.

Citizen researchers would benefit from reading all the articles there. Holmgren may be a bit harsh, but he raises very serious questions about the ethics and critical thinking of many in the "truth" movement. From what I can see, Holmgren has been attacked for his positions, for sticking to his positions, and for asking other people to clarify their own positions, and these attacks have not been in the spirit of open debate and inquiry.

I would prefer that talk of "disinformation" go away, and that people would just evaluate each others' arguments on the merits. Maybe this can happen now. Nevertheless, I think Holmgren's "disinformation" section is a valuable history for new researchers to read. It is as well- documented as all of his work, so you can decide for yourself whether his suspicions as to motives are justified.

About the term "citizen": Gerard Holmgren is a citizen of Australia, but his country has been greatly affected by 9/11, as has the entire world. Citizens of all countries have the right to know what happened, and the intelligence services of many of their countries surely know more they are not telling. Peaceloving citizens of all countries share a common interest in having the 9/11 criminals brought to justice.

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Portland Indymedia is censoring me re 9/11

In the last couple of weeks, I have had some strange experiences with censorship by Portland Independent Media Center (P-IMC), which began when I published comments here under the name Ningen:

In short, it began when I questioned P-IMC for shunting 9/11 researcher Gerard Holmgren's comment to a hidden "discussion" section, and resulted in my comments being moved to that section. My comments questioning their actions were not published at all. Since then, my comments about any subject have been shunted to the "discussion" section after vetting, or not published at all.

None of my later comments have been controversial. I acknowledge that my comments at the link above were somewhat heated, but I felt strongly that the article was wrong in labeling certain researchers as "disinformation," and did not like someone telling me what is an approved line of 9/11 inquiry.

Yesterday I published my "Open letter to a 'conspiracy theory' expert" as an article, not a comment. It was somewhat of an experiment, as I knew my posts were being intercepted and subjected to human review, and did not expect it to be published. To my surprise, after a long delay, they published it here:

But now P-IMC will not allow me to publish a response to a comment about an article they "allowed" me to publish. It has been many hours and I have sent it several times, so it is reasonable to assume it is being censored.

My comment is a reply to "historian." who made some statements I disagree with --- that Professor Fenster's book was funded by the CIA, and that in any case, he cannot be believed because he is a lawyer.

The comment is similar to the article that started all this censorship, in that includes a baseless accusation that someone is speaking as an agent of the government. I very much oppose such accusations, unless there is solid evidence of that, because such accusations can be aimed at anyone, and they interfere with rational inquiry and debate.

Now I cannot make a polite comment about a reaction to my own article that I disagree with, and which borders on defamation.

Is it Portland IMC's policy to allow defamatory articles and comments to be published and then censor the responses?

Is this "open publishing," which they claim is the heart of Indymedia?

I have not violated any of the editorial policies here:

Why am I being treated this way?

Who is vetting my publications, and under what standards?

I have read P-IMC for years, and thought it was the best IMC. I have posted a few articles there over the years, and commented dozens if not hundreds of time. Never were my contributions subject to review, and they were posted automatically within a few minutes.

Is it because I questioned their actions, or because of the content of my work?

This is creepy. It seems my trust in Indymedia was misplaced.

Because Portland Indymedia will not publish my reply to "historian," I will publish it here:

Thank you for your ideas

That CIA document is very interesting. Thank you. I thought propaganda against American citizens was illegal, though I don't know when that law was passed. I would like to see the memo on 9/11 - maybe in 20 years.

I agree with the CIA on this point that physical evidence is more reliable, assuming it has not been fabricated or tampered with (a big assumption):

"b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason."

Fenster's resume is linked from here:

I see no reason to think he is a CIA asset, or to say that even if he is. [I would change this -- if he were, that would be noteworthy. My point is that I see no evidence of that and such speculation is not good.] It might be interesting to know if he got a grant for the book and from where, but the book is finished. His ideas are out there and he is being quoted in the media, so his ideas should be refuted where wrong.

He wrote the book while in law school, but I think it is based on his prior work in communications and popular culture. Saying his work cannot be believed because he is a lawyer is not very persuasive. I think that in general, accusations that a person is not acting with sincerity are not useful and serve mainly to disrupt rational inquiry. Arguments have to be addressed on their merits. I'm sorry to use your comment to make this point, and I am not at all saying you are doing that, but I think it is an important point.

Update: I published this piece at Seattle Indymedia, where I am apparently still welcome:

I added this as a comment:

I just realized Portland IMC is also censoring me by not moving my article to its 9/11 topic page, where it obviously belongs and where it would be visible longer.

I consider myself part of the "People's Investigation of 9/11" described at that topic page, and agree with this statement there by Portland IMC:

"Keeping an open mind to examine all information, wherever it may lead, and courageously pursuing basic investigative questions such as who had motive, who had means, and who benefitted are the means to uncover the truth."

I'm wondering whether this principle is being applied, and if I am being censored because I think that questions about what hit the World Trade Center towers should be pursued.

I was not pushing this question at Portland IMC, but merely responding to someone who says that anyone asking such questions must be a government agent, which is ridiculous and defamatory.

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Professor Fenster declines to respond

Professor Fenster has declined to comment on my open letter to him, published earlier:

He has responded to me privately but will not give me permission to post his responses.

He has shown no indication that he has thought seriously about the questions raised by those he brands "9/11 conspiracy theorists," and I stand by my position that he has acted irresponsibly.

I have not told Professor Fenster my real name, which I realize is a bit unfair. However, as someone who has written that "[e]mploying the term 'conspiracy theory' serves as a strategy of delegitimation in political discourse," he should understand why I wish to remain anonymous.

As a victim of the "strategy of delegitimation" Fenster describes and has contributed to, I do not feel it is unfair to express my criticisms here.

The content of my letter should be more important than my identity. This forum is open to Professor Fenster should he wish to post a rebuttal.

Monday, December 25, 2006

Whose eyes? Whose ears?

"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale.” Robert Gates, Secretary of War, former director of SAIC and VoteHere.

I wasn't there. I only saw televised images and heard televised sounds.

I know law, and I know decency. I will decide what is within those bounds.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Open letter to a "conspiracy theory " expert

Professor Mark Fenster of the University of Florida School of Law has written a book entitled "Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture."

The introduction to his book can be read here:

Professor Fenster is often asked for his opinion on the "9/11 conspiracy theorists," most recently in today's Tampa Tribune, where he is quoted as follows:

"Conspiracies are part of every political culture," says Mark Fenster, a University of Florida law professor and author of the 2001 book "Conspiracy Theories: Secrets and Power in American Culture."

The Scripps Howard poll may reflect disillusionment over Iraq, Katrina and political scandals, he says.

"You ask people if they believe the government could have been behind 9/11, and they say, 'I wouldn't put it past them.'"

Fenster says similarities exist between the effects of the JFK assassination and 9/11 attacks. The whole country watched both events. Images were seared into people's brains through television.

He is also quoted by Scripps Howard here:

"What has amazed me is not that there are conspiracy theories, but that they didn't seem to be getting any purchase among the American public until the last year or so," Fenster said. "Although the Iraq war was not directly related to the 9/11 attacks, people are now looking back at 9/11 with much more skepticism than they used to."

Professor Fenster was also interviewed by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Radio. A critique of his comments on CBC Radio by Michael Keefer, Professor of English as the University of Guelph, is here:

The critique raises points similar to mine. After praising Fenster's work, Keefer says:

But I can’t help wondering why Professor Fenster thought himself qualified to comment on current historical and materials-science research into the events of September 11, 2001, and why he thought it appropriate to conflate this kind of research with the popular-culture paranoia on which he is indeed an expert.

Maybe because Fenster has no problem with participating in the delegitimation of inquiries into 9/11, which his own research shows is the purpose of the term "conspiracy theory." Keefer is too polite in my opinion -- I think Fenster's actions are highly irresponsible.

Fenster's CBC Radio interview, which I have not yet listened to in full, is here:

(Notice how CBC Radio begins with satire about NASA losing Apollo tapes -- "it's time to re-open that old TV studio." Yes, of course, all "9/11 conspiracy theorists" think the moon landings were faked. Hah hah. Isn't the murder of over 3,000 people a barrel of laughs?)

Based on what I've heard so far, I see that deconstructing Fenster's comments on CBC Radio will have to wait, and now return to his comments in the Tampa Tribune.

Fenster's comments above may seem innocuous, as he has not compared 9/11 to UFOs or Holocaust denial. However, he assumes that his studies of the Illuminati, the Turner Diaries, millennialism, the X-Files, and similar phenomena are inherently applicable to citizens' concerns about the crimes of 9/11. This is not only offensive, it is highly irresponsible.

Although he does not invoke the more distasteful or outlandish theories here, instead comparing 9/11 only with JFK, Fenster understands that the term "conspiracy theory" is an insult that "groups its victim with such unsavory characters as militia members, Oliver Stone, computer hackers, and the John Birch Society, and accuses him or her of believing in a secret, omnipotent individual or group that covertly orchestrates the events of the world." Fenster understands that the term "conspiracy theory" is used "as a strategy of delegitimation in political discourse." Thus, what he does here is worse, as he groups both 9/11 and JFK in with the Turner Diaries, Illuminati, and X-Files, and he does it knowing the effect this will have.

Knowing the effect of the term "conspiracy theory," one would expect Fenster to be more careful about using the term, particularly about as grave an issue as 9/11. He may think the questions about the official story of 9/11 are completely irrational, but has not published anything on the substance of these questions. Even for the conspiracies he discusses in his book, Fenster disavows any attempt to provide "the most logical explanations of the plots on which conspiracy theorists obsess."

I may be obsessed with finding a logical explanation for the events of 9/11, but that does not make me a "conspiracy theorist." It makes me a thinking, caring citizen. If the official explanation made any sense whatsoever, I could live with some gray areas.

Given that Fenster is an expert on the effects of characterizing a position as "conspiracy theory," it is fair to hold him, of all people, to a higher standard of care before characterizing a position as a "conspiracy theory."

Fenster's view of "conspiracy theories" is typical of "progressive" intellectuals: such theories are pathological responses to secrecy and power by the ignorant masses, who are too unsophisticated to understand "the relations of production and ideological structures of domination." Noam Chomsky, Chip Berlet, Alexander Cockburn, and Michael Albert make very similar arguments, blaming 9/11 conspiracy theorists for diverting the left from the worse crimes of capitalism. I'm still waiting for Chomsky to explain what would be a worse crime than 9/11, "even if it were true."

I wrote Professor Fenster the letter below, initially intending to send it to him. I have decided to post here instead, and will email him the link should he wish to respond.


Dear Professor Fenster:

I think 9/11 was likely an "inside job." I've never read the Turner Diaries and I don't watch the X-Files. I don't think the Zionists or the Illuminati did 9/11. Christianists scare me more than Islamists. I think Ruby Ridge and Pine Ridge were both handled wrongly by the FBI. Am I a "conspiracy theorist"?

I have seen you quoted several times in articles about "9/11 conspiracy theories," most recently in the Tampa Tribune. I've not had a chance to read your book, but reading the introduction at your website, I see that your argument is more complex than has been portrayed in these articles, and seems based on laudable ideals of participatory democracy.

As quoted in the Tampa Tribune, however, you either engage or are used in the very strategy of delegitimation that you describe in your book. As an expert in communications, you know the effect of characterizing questions about the official story of 9/11 as "conspiracy theories." You express concern about the disabling effects of "conspiracy theories" on political activism, while allowing your ideas to be used to disable the political activism of millions of Americans and to characterize their concerns as "marginal and extreme."

I question whether your "disillusionment" theory is applicable at all to questions about 9/11. Sure, it may be true that Iraq, Katrina, and scandals like Enron and Abramahof have made the American people more open to consider the criminality and indifference to human life of the current regime. If the American people knew more about the EPA's lies about the safety of New York's air post-9/11, and the emerging damage to rescuers' health that has resulted, they might be even more dis-illusioned.

On the other hand, it could be that rational suspicion about 9/11 is independently contributing to the anger that shows up in Scripps polls. Citizens' belated realization they are being lied to, and their growing willingness to question these lies. may be due to the wearing off of the trauma of 9/11 and the lifting of its chilling effect on free speech and free thought. As a doctor of philosophy you must know that correlation is not causation.

You suggest that there is no rational basis for belief in government complicity in 9/11, and that these beliefs are driven only by "disillusionment." I say that removal of illusions has allowed a more rational and objective view of the government's statements and actions.

The lack of substantive proof and dizzying leaps of logic you describe are indeed important - they apply to the official explanations of what happened on 9/11. Government complicity in at least a coverup is self-evident. It is wrong to shift the burden of proof to the American people, who lack the information necessary to "prove" government complicity and are ill-served by both the press and academia in getting that information.

Given the expertise for which you are invited to comment on the "9/11 conspiracy theories," and given that you show no special understanding of the issues surrounding 9/11, is it unfair to say that the only responsbile comment for you to make as an expert is that we should be very careful not to use the term "conspiracy theory" to characterize questions about 9/11?

Your thesis is that secrecy engenders "conspiracy theories," and you have written as a lawyer about the need for more robust enforcement of open government laws. Do you have any concerns about government secrecy surrounding 9/11, which was even criticized by members of the 9/11 Commission? Did you state those concerns in your interviews, and if so and you were quoted incompletely or out of context, did you object?

It is clear that you reject a priori the possibility of government complicity in 9/11. This is illogical, and given your excellent intellectual training, I can only attribute it to the psychological handicaps of your position in what you call "the relations of production and ideological structures of domination." Structural critiques can as easily be applied to you, Chomsky, Berlet, and Cockburn, who do not have any special claim on "progressive" thought.

As you state, with "conspiracy theories," closure does not occur, interpretation does not stop, and the political does not become transparent.

In criminal law, closure can occur, interpretation can stop, the crime can become transparent, the perpetrators can be punished, and the community's trust in their government can be restored.

Thousands of Americans died on 9/11, and thousands more Americans and hundreds of thousands of human beings have been killed and maimed because of the post-9/11 "War on Terror," which is not over yet. These crimes are ongoing, and the perpetrators are still at large.

Your book was written in 1999, and you disavow any need to analyze the particular "plots on which conspiracy theorists obsess." Therefore, it is tremendously irresponsible for you to assume that your work on militias, Turner Diaries, Illuminati, and the like is applicable to 9/11.

JFK may have some applicability, in the sense that the comparison of this crime to the other "conspiracy theories" is also strategic delegitimation. The murderers of JFK (and RFK and MLK) are likely dead, so I am not as concerned about your lumping JFK in as the result of "scapegoating, racism, and fascism."

In relation to 9/11, a much more interesting, as well as more responsible, phenomenon for you to study is the distortions of science by government agencies like the National Institute of Technology and Standards and professional bodies like the American Society of Civil Engineers. The bar associations to which we both belong might also be an interesting subject to study. These institutions are indeed pathological in their patently absurd explanations of the 9/11 "collapses" of the World Trade Center towers, and in their acceptance of these patently absurd explanations. Structural critiques indeed have a place in considering 9/11.

Please look at the picture below, and when viewing it, please remember three things:

(1) the official explanation is that this is a picture of a gravity-driven collapse;

(2) NIST did not model this "global collapse" beyond the point that it "ensued," because they could not with any semblance of rationality;

(3) hundreds of American citizens are being killed in this picture.

Am I a scapegoater, a racist, or a fascist because I demand that the perpetrators of this crime be brought to justice? Based on what you said on CBC Radio, I will ask: Am I seeking a "black and white" answer to what is a "gray" area? Am I looking for a "villain," when the government has already provided me with one?

Please understand that I am perfectly willing to believe that radical jihadists did this without any assistance from any American government, military, or private assistance. The first question is what is "this"? If you think it is "paranoid" to ask these questions, then it seems that your fine education has closed your mind more than opened it.

Can you honestly explain this by the "stuctural inequities inherent in capitalism" and "the vagaries of coincidence and mistake"?

I will stop now, as this is turning into a rant. I trust you will think a little harder before you use the term "conspiracy theory" to characterize a position, and I hope you will consider whether or not your work is being used in pursuit of the progressive values I think we share.

I apologize for posting anonymously, but my position within the relations of production and ideological structures of domination is less secure than yours.

Or maybe I'm just paranoid.



This is not a "collapse"

I do not care how many structural engineers are too coward to tell the truth.

"There comes a time when silence is betrayal." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

If you are a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, you are responsible for this.

It would also seem that the insurance companies involved, their attorneys, and perhaps even the federal courts have some questions to answer.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Some interesting physics links

I found a nice Flash presentation entitled "The Demolition of the World Trade Towers" which goes through the basic physics.

mirrored here:

It's from the first post in this 987-page thread, "Basic Physics, Correct Analysis of WTC Towers Collapse."

This thread is reviewed here:

Monday, December 18, 2006

Manuel Garcia's fancy way to say "moonbat"

The below comment was made at Spooked's website, saying correctly that "conspiratory pincher," a combination of the names of two regular commenters, do nothing but mock and never respond to Spooked's great questions and analyses.

"The whole official 9/11 story is a pack of lies, and all conspiratory pincher can do is hurl insults like a slightly-below-average 4th grader."

I've been reading Manual Garcia's article in Counterpunch, "The Physics of 9/11," so I reacted to this comment as written below. My conclusion is that Garcia is a fancier version of 4th-grader commenters -- he uses intellectual snobbery to hide his tautological reasoning that assumes what he purports to prove.

I plan to support this assertion in the next week or so, but I believe my conclusion is obvious. I would appreciate if people would read Garcia's paper, find Garcia's tautology, and post it as comment. (Hint: It's in the section Physics Problem Number 1 -- Free Fall of the WTC Towers)

They're joined by Manuel Garcia in Counterpunch, with his article "The Physics of 9/11."

The only difference is that Garcia hurls insults like a way-below-average college sophomore, especially considering his Princeton education. "Conspiracy theory," Jungian "mass psychosis," "flying saucers," "Godzilla," "political immaturity," fear, ignorance, and poor education, with the obligatory unexplained reference to Occam's Razor.

After finishing his attempt at mockery and intellectual intimidation, Garcia then moves to what is supposed to be the subject of his article, the physics of 9/11. The purpose of this, he says, is to bestow rationality and political maturity on the poor, misled "conspiracy theorists."

Garcia does this with a big fancy tautology. Why did the towers fall in virtually free-fall time? Because Garcia assumes they did, and has created a fancy model that most readers of Counterpunch won't take the time to recognize assumes would it purports to prove. Garcia has a PhD in engineering and is much too erudite and sophisticated to be a victim of conspiracy theories, so the truth of his analysis is self-evident.

Manuel Garcia, Conspiracy Smasher's big brother that went to college.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Face it -- we're all kooks

I often hear people saying that such and such a theory -- usually one questioning whether Boeings hit WTC 1 and 2 -- will discredit the "9/11 Truth Movement."

This is ridiculous.

I found a comment by a Frederic Rice at Portland Indymedia that says it quite well:

"The fact that some 911 conspiracy kooks believe that the jet aircraft were computer generated doesn't mean that they're not 911 conspiracy kooks. It just means that their willful ignorance and occult stupidity is just a bit different than the willful ignorance and occult stupidity of the other 911 conspiracy kooks. "

I couldn't have said it better myself.

If someone is open to considering controlled demolition, they are not going to stop just because of some other theory they think is crazy. To say so is insulting to people's intelligence. People can assess individual arguments on their merits.

If someone thinks that anyone who disbelieves the official 9/11 story is a kook, they are not going to believe controlled demolition or anything else that suggests government complicity.

I read an article in which the author suggests that New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer did not open an investigation because some unnamed "disinfo" site made Spitzer fear for his reputation if he opened an investigation. This is not plausible -- Spitzer either was willing to open an investigation or was not, and would not choose not to just because of some website.

The article also suggests that Democracy Now did not want to be associated with the author's group and would not do a show on 9/11 because they were receiving disinfo emails. This again is not plausible -- Democracy Now was either willing to do a show or not, and Democracy Now of all media would likely recognize a disinformation campaign.

Since some will consider me a kook for questioning 9/11, regardless of whether I stay within certain "reasonable" bounds , I might as well let my kookiness run free.

Said another way -- I will make any inquiries I think reasonable, and do not want to be attacked for doing so.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Sacred Cow Noam Chomsky gored by Barry Zwicker

Interview of Barry Zwicker in August 2006. He asserts that Noam Chomsky uses propaganda techniques beginning at 41:03. His longstanding concern is that Chomsky has consistently opposed investigation of various murders - JFK, RFK, MLK, 9/11. I do find it bizarre and disturbing that Noam Chomsky says that even if 9/11 were an inside job, which is of course absurd, there are worse crimes of state we should be concentrating on. He never says what those crimes might be.

Friday, December 1, 2006

Thanks, Peggy Carter

Thanks to her, I found the article in Journal of Engineering Mechanics that I analyzed in my first blog entry.

Ms. Carter discussed it here:

This blog entry was also my first encounter with the ridiculous, unproductive attacks on people that question whether faked images were televised on 9/11.

She made a mistake in calculations, but so what? The paper is exactly the kind of material we need to be analyzing, and I think the paper proves just what she said it did. I'm sure I have made mistakes, too, and want people to point them out. If I am wrong, I want to know it. Telling me I'm an idiot or a shill for wondering about it won't work.

Ms. Carter is interviewed here, and I think she makes some great points, especially about psychological warfare and the media's military role.

That reminds of the reports in 2000 of Army psychological operation officers working at CNN:

Where they there to learn or to teach? Does it matter?

Could the invasion of Iraq have occurred without the media's blind parroting of government propaganda? Does the New York Times' after-the-fact mea culpa mean anything, or is it just an attempt to restore their credibility for the next war?

Isn't the media a tool of the government , unwitting or not, for invading the sovereignty of our minds to get us to support the invasion of other countries? This is indeed psychological warfare.

Thanks again, Ms. Carter, for the great ideas.