The Crucifixion of Naomi Wolf for Conspiracy Theory Heresy

Who’s afraid of Naomi Wolf? The NYPD apparently. Here she is arrested in 2011 at Occupy Wall Street for standing lawfully on the sidewalk wearing an evening gown. I didn’t even know that was against the law.

This is the way you treat the author of “Vagina: A New Biography”?! Yep. Naomi Wolf suggested the following on her Facebook page infra. It dares to call into question the authenticity of portions of the ISIS beheading narrative. It happens to repeat the hypotheses and theories of many others. It’s not particularly novel or earth-shattering to you and me, lovers of truth. But it is to the benighted and the profoundly nescient. And who might that be? The media, of course.

This was followed by her clarification in view of the reaction Wolf received. She had to back up and back down, spew apologias and pretend to be contrite if she dared hurt anyone’s feelings. This, of course, is the requisite reaction to anything that may be sound or valid. Just ask Joe Biden who apologized for speaking the truth anent ISIS paymasters. You see, even Joe can’t go off the official storyline. That’s a no-no, Joe-Joe.

My letter to some news outlets:

“Dear Sir or Madam,

I see that the Sydney Morning Herald, Talking Points Memo and the Guardian are all addressing the fact that I, and my citizen journalism community on facebook, has asked for normal journalistic sourcing on the ISIS story.

Some of the coverage distorts the nature of my questions.

I am not asserting that the ISIS videos have been staged. No one can yet know anything for sure about the ISIS videos as they have simply not been independently analyzed, according to the news outlets which we have contacted for more information about the verification process. I am simply reporting what we have had confirmed by public editors of several newspapers: the fact that the videos have only one source and have not been independently verified. This second verification is – or used to be — a normal part of news investigation.

I certainly sincerely apologize if one of my posts was insensitively worded. I have taken that one down.
But that does not mean I don’t stand by the need for all journalists to have two independent sources confirming a major story before they release it as confirmed.

More importantly for journalism and for the long haul facing us as a planet as we react to these videos: I am not saying the ISIS beheading videos are not authentic. I am not saying they are not records of terrible atrocities. I am saying that they are not yet independently confirmed by two sources as authentic, which any Journalism School teaches, and the single source for several of them, SITE, which received half a million dollars in government funding in 2004, and which is the only source cited for several, has conflicts of interest that should be disclosed to readers of news outlets.

Why is this even controversial? There are plenty of reasons for the normal vetting process of news to take place here, as in any news story. There could be plenty of reasons that a violent extremist group may wish to manipulate what it communicates to the rest of the world, and the job of newspapers is independently to verify a news story that is driving massive change — boots on the ground — airstrikes — and most worrying to me, lasting suppression of critical liberties such as the bills that just passed in Australia threatening all journalists there with ten years in prison for national security reporting. I hope, finally, that the nation of my/our request for proper, normal news sourcing is clear.

I will add: a hundred thousand Iraqis and four thousand young and brave American men and women, US soldiers, died terrible deaths — deaths as awful as any depicted right now in these videos — because American reporters and editors did not check on a news stream full of assertions that turned out to be straight-out false, about WMD. At that time reporters and editors simply took dictation from government sources. The false story made it into several major respected news outlets, including one of our most august newspapers, New York Times.

And we rushed to war.

We are here again. It is of course terrible to see videos purporting to show assassinations; it is terrible that anyone is assassinated anywhere. But if we don’t do our jobs as journalists and citizens and check all the news on the basis of which we are being rushed into war — and on the basis of which Australia and Britain are being stripped drastically and speedily of historic freedoms, — then many worse things will happen to children and old people, and to our brave young men and women in that part of the world, than a hundred thousand videos will be able to document. Terrible deaths may be ahead for many innocent people, probably out of camera range, many many multiples of the deaths on the videos I am seeking to double source now, if journalists and editors do not independently verify the news now.
And it will be our fault, as journalists and editors. That is why we should do our job and double source the news.

Thank you — Naomi Wolf”

The gatekeepers speak. As an example of the heat directed towards Wolf, look to the scathing attack she was handed by none other than the literary titan and journalistic crown jewel Vox. Ouch.
Note also that Wolf has issued her response and clarification to the farfetched notion that what we think we know, we may not. That what is presented may require independent verification and dogged journalism. I mean, imagine that! What could ever possess this woman to think for a moment that what we’re told may not be the truth, that it might be exaggerated or obfuscated or bowdlerized or skewed? That something might be used deliberately to enrage and motivate a particular ideology or course of action.

Can you believe this? And while this may fall on deaf ears, questioning facts is not meant as disrespect for a family. But, with all due respect, even if it is, so what? Any inquiry and query based on suspicion or skepticism can and will be viewed as disrespect to someone — the government, society, America, whatever.

The Hegelian Dialectic personified. Klein also noted on Facebook: “The US benefits from … us being SO DAMN SCARED so that our intelligence agencies can take away the last of our freedoms on behalf of corporate interests the way intelligence agencies in the West are doing all over … Britain, Canada, Australia, next NZ … so there you are.”

I’m sorry, but is this supposed to be insane? This is precisely the goal of any government. Haven’t you read the papers, studied history? As Rahm Emanuel now famously put it: “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

And notice that she even goes so far to question the who the folks are of the website SITE as did another dread “conspiracy theorist” of renown Alex Jones did through his website, that, by the by, is replete with source references, citation and links.

Since mid-August 2014 major news organizations have conveyed videos allegedly found online by the SITE Intelligence Group.Unsurprisingly the same media have failed to closely interrogate what the private company actually is and whether the material it promotes should be accepted as genuine.

The Search for International Terrorist Entities Intelligence Group (SITE) was co-founded by Rita Katz in 2001.

In 2003 Katz authored a book, Terrorist Hunter: The Extraordinary Story of a Woman Who Went Undercover to Infiltrate the Radical Islamic Groups Operating in America, which she published using the pseudonym, “Anonymous.”

The CIA manipulating videos?! I’m shocked! The CIA’s already and repeatedly admitted to forging and conspiring to forge a host of videos in the past. This is nothing new. Not to us, that us. The “us,” who reads the truth. Damn! That word again. Truth.

During planning for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the CIA’s Iraq Operations Group kicked around a number of ideas for discrediting Saddam Hussein in the eyes of his people.

One was to create a video purporting to show the Iraqi dictator having sex with a teenage boy, according to two former CIA officials familiar with the project.

“It would look like it was taken by a hidden camera,” said one of the former officials. “Very grainy, like it was a secret videotaping of a sex session.”

The idea was to then “flood Iraq with the videos,” the former official said.

And you certainly must know of the workings of the Rand Corporation, especially in this exercise. (Just pretend you do.) In “Why the Iraqi Resistance to the Coalition Invasion Was So Weak,” you get a peak into the incredible imagination of these folks.

“According to histories of the 2003 invasion, the single most effective ‘information warfare’ project, which originated in the Pentagon, was to send faxes and e-mails to Iraqi unit commanders as the fighting began, telling them their situation was hopeless, to round up their tanks, artillery and men, and go home,” the article states. “Many did.”

Naomi’s not the first to question “ISIS” videos. The Telegraph reported that video of James Foley’s execution may have actually been staged, with the actual murder taking place off-camera. Experts noted that no blood could be seen, even though the knife is seen drawn across the neck area at least six times. “Forensic analysis of the footage of the journalist’s death has suggested that the British jihadist in the film may have been the frontman rather than the killer.”

“After enhancements, the knife can be seen to be drawn across the upper neck at least six times, with no blood evidence to the point the picture fades to black,” the analysis said.

Sounds allegedly made by Foley do not appear consistent with what may be expected.

During Foley’s speech, there appears to be a blip which could indicate the journalist had to repeat a line.

One expert commissioned to examine the footage was reported as saying: “I think it has been staged. My feeling is that the execution may have happened after the camera was stopped.”

However the company, which requested anonymity, did not reach a definitive answer.

It concluded: “No one is disputing that at some point an execution occurred.”

 So, what’s the beef with what she said? What? I’ll answer the question. Nothing.

%d bloggers like this: