Here's a guy infiltrating the Left to pre-empt exposure of CIA media and reinforce his credibility for his CIA 9/11 disinformation.

Former Livermore Labs nuclear weapon scientist, Manuel Garcia Jr., who published a few nonsensical articles over at Counterpunch.org to deny the 9/11 demolition of the World Trade Center by promoting non-existent physics ...just published an anti-Teabagger article called "Decoding the Language of Social Control" complete with accurate descriptions of the sociology and biology of US racist propaganda and politics.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/03/decod ... l-control/

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e24966.htm

I recommend posting some corrective comments on the sites carrying his latest infiltration article such as:



Here are past links to Garcia's disinfo and its debunking by Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman, and other non-government scientists-

9/11 Manuel Garcia - Google Search

1. Manuel Garcia, Jr: The Physics of 9/11
"Critique of Manuel Garcia's The Physics of 9/11 We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist; Critique of Manuel Garcia's The Thermodynamics of 9/11 ..."
911review.com/reviews/counterpunch/markup/physic11282006.html

2. Manuel Garcia, Jr: The Thermodynamics of 9/11
"Critique of Manuel Garcia's The Physics of 9/11 We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist; Critique of Manuel Garcia's The Thermodynamics of 9/11 ..."
911review.com/reviews/counterpunch/markup/thermo11282006.html

3. Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice
"by Jim Hoffman; A Quick Review of Manuel Garcia's article "We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist: The Physics of 9/11" by Kevin Ryan ..."
stj911.org/perception/media.html

4. Manuel Garcia, Jr. Articles
"CounterPunch Special Report, Debunking the Myths of 9/11, ..... This particular Manuel García, Jr. (there have been, are and will be many) can be reached at ..."
www.idiom.com/~garcia/

5. OpEdNews - Article: 9/11: Robert Fisk's Skepticism vs. Manuel ...
"9/11: Robert Fisk's Skepticism vs. Manuel Garcia Jr.s Shameless ... Manuel Garcia Jr., whose actual career has included work on more ..."
www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_johndo ... isk_s_.htm

6. Manuel Garcia, Jr: The Physics of 9/11
"We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist. The Physics of 9/11. By MANUEL GARCIA, Jr. Five years after the events of September 11, 2001, ..."
www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html

7. Manuel Garcia, Jr: The Thermodynamics of 9/11
"The Thermodynamics of 9/11. By MANUEL GARCIA, Jr. When hijacked airliners crashed into the tall Towers of the World Trade Center, ..."
www.counterpunch.org/thermo11282006.html

8. Manuel Garcia Sees Physics That Don't Exist
"up the ongoing 9/11 Wars with these false claims. So when a US weapons scientist , like Manuel Garcia, offers more wild speculation in ..."
www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/m ... n-ryan.pdf

9. Manuel Garcia Sees Physics That Don't Exist - 911truth.org
"In his latest article, Kevin Ryan exposes Manuel Garcia's Counterpunch trifecta of articles to reality testing. They fail miserably."
www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070102200529471

10. VDARE.com: 09/13/07 - 9/11 Explains the Impotence Of The Anti-war ...
"Manuel Garcia shares this viewpoint. In the September 12, 2007, CounterPunch, Garcia writes that "rationalists and realists" are people who see 9/11 "as ..."
vdare.com/roberts/070913_anti_war.htm

11. Kevin Ryan's 911 blogger piece on Manuel Garcia Counterpunch articles
"For our own understanding, let's take a closer look at Manuel Garcia and his ... In his “Physics of 9/11”, Garcia offered his new “twisted joints” theory, ..."
www.free-conversant.com/realtruth/1323

The original link to Garcia's psyops, Dissident Voice, is having trouble grasping the fact that they are dupes of a psyoperator.

I have a dream...that someday anti-fascists will catch on to psyops tactics....and check out their SOURCES to quit helping the fucking fascists...

...don't all stampede this psyops topic now...

Did I ever tellya 'bout my breakfast with an FBI infiltrator of the Left?

FBI Special Agent Colleen Rowley attended (infiltrated) a Project Censored-event called the Truth Emergency Conference in Santa Cruz 2007.

Here she is infiltrating the 9/11 Truth movement with her "19 hijackers" bullshit in her Marge Gunderson act ('Fargo')-
http://blip.tv/file/3335571

"Oh, yah. A heckuva thing. Oh kay then!"


The second morning I was having a hotel breakfast with the editor of the Rock Creek Free Press (Matt Sullivan) and discussing CIA media when FBI infiltrator Colleen Rowley plopped her tray down and hijacked the conversation to her work against mafia families in New York. She was so full of shit but Matt and I politely pretended to accept her disruptive spiel.

CIA infiltrator of the Left, Ray McGovern, was also in attendance and denied any knowledge of CIA media when I asked him. "I was just an analyst." Yeah right.

Where are you, Ty?

9/11 Truth is taking a beating these days. In some sense, that means it is a threat to the PTB of course. Thanks for sharing. This kind of thing makes me feel all red-faced.

The inanity of these stories--a gov't agent interrupting your breakfast--IMO testifies to their reality, unless you're making it up. I'm thinking of the story where David "Oh Shit My Legs Hail Satan" Myatt was at a cure-cancer-with-radio-waves conference. I mean it really sounds like a dumb-cop thing to do. Also agent provocateurs/informants in such relatively non-threatening organizations that are going to get arrested by police and harassed by administrations anyway (no parade permits) like NYC's Critical Mass. There's probably a general fund somewhere for "infiltration" that includes nonsense like this.

Also, the mere bibliography's inclusion of both CounterPunch *and* VDARE at the same time is, um, well, pretty obvious to me. Which leads me to another point: has Paul Craig Roberts (or Catherine Austin Fitts) ever made any attempt to explain, in print or on video/audio, his movement from Reaganite to anti-neocon/neolib? Or outlined a broad program of restoration? Fitts seems to advocate in small business and small banks, and that would dovetail with early '80s political and political philosophical thought that was prominent among some ex-New Lefters and the moderate & paleocons, as well as the ideological hodge-podge of popular vernacular American political thought. But Roberts and Fitts both worked for Reagan. And the policies of Reagan (and late Carter admin, really) are in no way a departure from what Bush I, Clinton (NAFTA), Bush II (everything) and Obama (e.g., no public option) advocate. It maybe that after 30 years they feel like things have shifted too far for them, but in politics things work on trajectories, not cut-and-paste cause-and-effect policies. So where's the explanation?

There's a Left?

Attack!!!



Because we certainly can't be having accurate and informative articles appearing under the byline of a dirty commie CD denier. And thoroughly rebutting his work when it's objectionable just isn't enough.

So we obviously have to persecute him indiscriminately on an indefinite basis, no matter what he does.



It's the American way.

Am I right?

I didn't read the latest Garcia piece at all. I will if I get time. I can probably learn something from it. You can learn something from most anything, if you can learn to read between the lines. But I remember clearly several pieces by this author that I have already read. They were extremely shoddy. If I weren't so careful with my words I might say something like disingenuous. I like that word.

So, isn't it simply that, having already been badly savaged, several times, we might at least watch the dangerous dog carefully? I mean, will we ever learn? Normally, being bitten once is aphoristically assumed to be sufficient.

Certainly. But normally, in a free society, you respond to disingenuous, shoddy or otherwise objectionable political speech by strenuously objecting to it on the grounds that it's disingenuous, shoddy and, if applicable, otherwise objectionable. And you do in political terms. Because your differences with the person to whose speech you're objecting are political. In case that point needs clarifying.

I mean, assuming that you're a proponent of civil liberties as a matter of general principle. Which neither you nor anyone else has to be, needless to say. I am, though. Especially when it comes to freedom of speech. And publicly calling for a posse to join you in an organized personal harassment campaign against an individual whose past politically objectionable speech has already been extensively rebutted -- let alone doing it in response to a story that you characterize as accurate and responsible -- with the sole and express intent of preemptively silencing him on a global basis is not speech.

It's (a) action; (b) political action; and (c) a form of political action to which I object on principle.

Hence my objection to it. Having expressed which, I have no reason and no wish to stand in the way of anyone who holds different views. So it's fine with me if you do.

Besides which, I love Hugh and don't want to fight with him. I was just registering my disagreement for the record. I strongly encourage any and every person to whom it doesn't speak just to ignore it. Because seriously why should anyone prioritize what I think over what he or she thinks?

Please rock on according to your own best judgment, anyone! And also everyone! I meant you guys too the first time, it was just a pronoun thing.