An open letter to Rob Kall, Editor, Op-Ed News
|Who's the real vulture - the mainstream terror profiteers, or the skeptics?|
Dear Rob Kall,
You recently published an article calling people like me "despicable" for asking whether the Boston bombings might be a false-flag op. Such people, you say, are "vultures" and "tragedy parasites." You ask "cui-bono - who benefits from promulgating these junk theories?" and answer with a bizarre hodge-podge of supposed beneficiaries:
The only two words in your article that make sense are: "cui bono"- who benefits? But that question should be applied to the bombing itself, and the mainstream coverage it was designed to create - not to those who question the official narrative.
-Anti-government people-- Libertarians, Republicans, anarchists
-People in the gun business
-People who want to create and maintain fear
-the one percent--
-People who want to keep the 99% from coming together
-websites that feed the people who are susceptible to these theories
-people who want people to lose trust in any news source
The people asking questions about such events are, for the most part, not benefiting at all. On the contrary, they are losing benefits, and undergoing very real suffering, as a consequence of their dedication to the truth. For example, Professor James Tracy, who has asked excellent questions about Sandy Hook, has become the target of an orchestrated attempt at character assassination aimed at damaging or ending his career - the same thing that happened to me at the University of Wisconsin when I questioned 9/11.
Do you really believe that "people in the gun business" are writing and spreading articles suggesting that the Boston bombings or the Sandy Hook shootings might be false flag attacks? Do you honestly think that "the one percent" are spreading the false-flag meme? Do you really think the point of raising public consciousness about the ubiquity of false-flag incidents throughout history is to "keep the 99% from coming together"? How, precisely, would enlightening the public about the ongoing crime wave of false-flag incidents achieve any of these objectives? What, exactly, were you smoking when you strung together these non-sequiturs?
I think your article is a good example of what psychologists call a "reaction formation." I think you are afraid of finding out the truth about false-flag events. Specifically you are afraid of learning that your own US government is by far the world's biggest terrorist, that Israel and pro-Israeli forces in the US were behind 9/11, and that Israel is the global leader in false-flag attacks and strategies. (Your deep commitment to Zionism is evidenced by your attempt to discourage people from even using the word at Op-Ed News!)
I also sense a tinge of hysteria in your lashing out so wildly against people like me. Is it because you know we are winning the infowar, and you are losing? (Compare the readership of my Press TV article on the Boston bombings with that of your article.)
So in asking "cui bono" of the so-called "conspiracy theorists" (who don't benefit in any way except spiritually from their truth-seeking) you are projecting your own unconscious fear of finding out "who benefits" from terrorism. And the answer is that in almost all cases, the only beneficiaries of supposed anti-government terrorism are governments themselves. That is why almost all spectacular acts of terrorism are false-flag, state-sponsored operations.
As Vincent Vinciguerra, one of the perpetrators of the US-military-sponsored Operation Gladio
terror attacks, explained: “You had to attack civilians, the people,
women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any
political game. The reason was quite simple: to force . . . the public
to turn to the state to ask for greater security.”
And while governments benefit from "terrorism" by grabbing more money and power, big media benefits by making huge profits on its terror coverage. The Boston bombings earned many tens of millions of dollars for the mainstream media. By contrast, almost every independent media person pushing the false-flag meme is doing it for free - out of love of truth, not money.
Personally, I lost roughly two million dollars in anticipated lifetime earnings as a university professor because I refused to stop seeking the truth about 9/11 and other false-flag events. I doubt if the people pushing the mainstream line, including you, are sacrificing anything - except, perhaps, the most intelligent fraction of their audience.
But I could be wrong. I would like to hear you explain your position on this matter. (I'm sure you can do a better job than you did in your article.) So I am writing to invite you to join me on my radio show, 4 to 5 or 5 to 6 pm Eastern, on any Monday or Friday beginning May 26th for a friendly debate on who is creating which narratives about terrorism for whose benefit. And, of course, I would be happy to do the same thing on your radio show.
Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from you.
Labels: 9/11 truth, conspiracy theories, cui bono, false flag, james tracy, op-ed news, operation gladio, rob kall, sandy hook, terrorism, vultures, who benefits