[Ed note: Hey everybody, welcome to a conversation. That's right, a conversation between two old friends. One is a sensible conservative (in bold text for our guest of honour), the other is a radical liberal (normal text), on the pressing issues of the day. We could also go back and forth for days - and did before this exchange, but the back and forth in this email string goes twice, and we're discussing with the necessary forcefulness to enable a deep dialectic on two completely disparate points of view. Don't worry, we're still friends, and I'm even listening to this right now as I type this...
Chronicles 1 - http://www.myspace.com/getcapewearcapeflySee
On 6/7/06, Black Krishna wrote:
my comments on your comments, sir. as a gentleman, and in honour of
you as my guest, i'll let you have the last word on this and then pimp
it... :-) See - as I said to you I am happy to let you post this on your blog. The only problem I have with that is the point of this discussion wasnt to provide you with blog fodder. If thats all you do with it - use it as the blogging equivalent of a contrarian guest on a radio talk show then the point is lost. I dont really care who believes what about 9/11 so long as the counter-factual nonsense being peddled by Alex "they worship moloch, Dudes" jones et al remains harmless. i care much more about my friend BK wasting his time and talents.
> > i'm learning a lot about how you guys think and how to
> > deal with it on a larger scale.
>> *Yah. its called reason, logic, scientific method, dispassionate
> common sense. those are all parts of it. You can deal with it as a
> good guy
> by doing it better or like a bad guy by using fallacies of logic to
> rhetorical advantage. Im more comfortable with the good guy approach
> - but
> Im a purist.*
actually, since i have the bigger burden of proof i need more of those
tools than you do - and use them.
I am openly accusing you of playing tricks on yourself and using argumentational tricks whenever you discuss this topic. You are not being rigorous.
all of the analysis from those tools
can be measured as "reasonable" or not depending on what you consider
"normal" or not. i don't think this police state-crap is normal, nor
the billions of people starving, nor any of the policies that enforce a
continuation and expansion of the same or worsening destructive
policies. once that's established i use the same tools to confirm the
information i find as "reasonable" from my perspective, and since my
perspective is more beneficial for the world (and all the similar ones)
then i find it a more "reasonable" basis for making decisions.See: its not reasonable. its preposterous nonsense. As I have demonstraded. more importantly its a distraction from the real sleaze that needs to be fought. There is a quote from Lou Dobbs of all people - whose anti-immigration / anti-free trade zealotry I quite strongly disagree with - that I nevertheless find fitting.
"Both political parties love to excite and enliven their so-called "bases" by focusing on wedge issues like gay marriage, abortion, gun control, school prayer and flag burning. Both the Republicans and Democrats raise these issues to distract and divert public attention from the pressing issues that affect our way of life and our nation's future."
I couldnt agree more. The use of a constitutional amendment opposing gay marriage is disgraceful - and a disgraceful waste of government time. Its really relevant in two ways - first as something that is worthy of protesting, and second as a caution about wasting your resources.
> it's not like what i think is immediately believable,
> *Its completely unbelievable once an honest examination of the facts
> evidence occurs.*
i don't see how or why i'd be dishonest about it, explain, please,
Sure. The dishonesty is against yourself. Youve created a persona that you now feel the need to live up to. You are invested in this argument. Thats why you can no longer assess the facts presented and weigh them honestly ( e.g. without bias). You went looking for a war to fight and you found one. Now you are a combatant instead of an analyst. a lawyer instead of a judge. ergo - dishonest.
doing me absolutely no good relative to the traditional "war is bad but
i don't care to find out all the reasons why it's happening" approach
taken by most. If you really and truly cared about why its happening, you would do better fact checking and would have dismissed this conspiracy theory long ago. So you'll have to dig deep in your soul and find out what your real motivations are for continuing along this path.
like millions of others i've seen evidence and have my
doubts, and like thousands of others i continued investigating it until
now it's almost boring: there's no one else who could've engineered
9/11 other than the U.S. govt. that's it. You think far too highly of government. Your false premise is that it was "engineered" at all. As others have demonstrated far more rigorously than I could, planes crashed into buildings and made them fall. there were no controlled demolitions. A plane did crash into the pentagon. there is a very real threat of terrorism from Wahabbi Islamist fascists. Now Im not going to get into opposing everything islam and championing everything western and spouting platitudes like "they hate us for our freedoms" when, really, they hate us for Israel and the wests geo-political strong arming vis-a-vis oil politics, and its willingness to back certain oppressive regimes all over the world. But they do hate us. and they do commit "terrorist" or, if you like "asymmetrical attacks against soft targets". September 11th was one of these. You choose to ignore this despite the fact that the evidence overwhelmingly points to it and against your hypothesis.
And, you continue to ignore the point that you refuse to defend your own constructive argument.
when you look at all the
evidence of what happened, you can clearly see that the "deus ex
machina" was too coincidental in too many areas to be a coincidence,
and nothing remotely like what a group of 19 arabs in the u.s. could
engineer. This is what I am talking about. This assertion is simply not true. Its all based on poking (pathetic, easily and continuously debunked) holes in the true story and then refusing to put together a strong constructive case. and absolutely refusing to apply the same rigorous analysis to your counter-case that you did to the official story. Which is to be expected - because if you did, your counter-case would crumble like dust and you could no longer egotistically count yourself among the elect few who "see the truth".
> and it's not like
> i haven't squandered my credibility by being "weird" in my own way.
>> *I was going to say something about this earlier but deleted it. The
> with trumpeting guys like Alex Jones and theories like this is that
> you will
> lose your credibility on real issues. Its like when you wanted to
> talk about
> the internet neutrality issue and both J and I were ready to
> dismiss you,
> basically, because you are you. "BK believes and trumpets
> claims is the belief." You can say thats our problem, but you are
> gonna have
> a Boy who Cried Wolf problem at some point. And the Boy who Cried
> wolf was
> the one who got eaten by the wolf.*
it's an interesting cliche, but there's no reason for me to cry "wolf"
in this case. i can get attention, friends, love, money, girls,
whatever the hell i want with my charming and pretty ass, and i can
turn the "weird" on and off - i'm just reppin' it for all the mofo's
who're getting targeted in the increasingly paranoid wave of fascism
that's washing over us.
No. You are crying wolf. when a real problem exists people will not listen to you. Its about having a reputation for gullibility, not a charming smile.
i also refuse to believe we're not dealing
with "real issues", as the majority of mr. jones work is media analysis
of mainstream news, and like thousands of others he's just separating
the truth from the lies. he also does critiques based on checking
original source material, and even won a "Project Censored Award" for
his analysis of The Patriot Act - a soft-Left group, so they don't even
normally hang. but, when he's right he's right,
Jones is wrong about Bohemian Grove (well - he sensationizes it and refuses to look at it for what it actually is, thereby ignoring the actual problems with something like Bohemian Grove while pretending it is some kind of death cult), he is wrong about his whole world government thesis, he is wrong about the 9/11 conspiracy theory. He is sensationalistic and not rigorous.
and that's a hell of a
lot, so even guys like Greg Palast who work for the BBC and Guardian
still appear on his show and in his movies - among hundreds of other
respectable politicians, professors, professionals and activists.
basically i take the same approach: he's right on a tonne of stuff, but
he knows a crapload more, so i can't say i automatically agree with
everything he says - i don't do that with anybody. it's not crazy to
me when no one else can prove him wrong, i just don't believe something
until i've checked into it enough. not all the way, just enough, and
the same as anybody.
I checked into his sensationalistic claims and easily found out that he is a sensationalist who bends the facts to make them more exciting. Like a tabloid. Facts that dont suit his purpose are ignored.
> it's just that i never ran "tight cases", i never thought they were
> challenging enough for me to invest the time in debating at all, and
> while i know N said the rules have been set fairly for
> and the game is to "win", i always thought i was smart enough to put
> on the line like this: he sounds crazy, but it makes sense, and this
> gives us a new way to look at an old problem.
>> *Im not in this to win. Im just looking at this objectively. I dont
> think I
> win if I win an argument but am actually wrong. As for you...you
> crazy. you arent making sense. and this is a distraction from a focus
> real problems. and Im not being flippant or mean there. Thats just my
> call on the facts. I dont, by the way, think you are crazy. I think
> have motivations other than the truth, however. I think you went
> looking for
> purpose and a shot at a way to make a difference in life and this is
> it led you. Retreating from it, therefore, contains an expensive
> cost for you in terms of life purpose / self image or whatever.
> like how Alex Jones's salary and sales depends on stringing together
> conspiracy theories and ignoring reasonable explanations that counter
> worst case claims. As BK would say, "Who Profits"? ;-) *
oh, and i agree if i was punishing myself, but i'm not, and in fact i'm
among the happiest people in the world. basically knowing how the
world really works by looking behind the scenes at the money and power
has made it less confusing, and while they're trying to screw us (as
i'm sure you can agree with The Patriot Act, the ongoing War in Iraq,
New Orleans, underfunding of social services, tax-cuts for the rich,
and other negligent tragedies prove) i at least know that for a fact,
and can deal with it much easier than the media's "we don't know why
gas prices are high!" crap. I am not impressed with this administration. They are incompetent and arrogant. That having been said, they did not plant controlled demolition charges in downtown offices buildings, and shoot a missile into the pentagon. I know why gas prices are high - increasing population, shrinking supply, geopolitical instability and most important exponentially increasing demand from china. It aint string pulling by freemasons, dude. And New Orleans was exactly the kind of government clusterfuck that speaks to what I am saying. Government is really not all that competent. New Orleans is the unmitigated, disgusting disaster that proves the point. And political will will NOT galvanise prior to a real crisis. Thats why they didnt have the proper orders and procedures in place to shoot down the passenger aircraft (and can you imagine being the guy to give THAT order. whoever had to do it would have likely hesitated until it was too late or tried to pass the buck) and that is why they never spent the millions necessary to reinforce the Levies in New Orleans. Once again - it aint the illuminati or Freemasons.
as for "sales'n'salary", i'm doing a tonne
for free whether it's used or not, and that's partly to prove my
consistent dedication to the issue. Yes...which is too bad given that there are better ways for you to focus. If you want to fight for civil liberties go ahead. its a noble cause. But instead you are blogging about an already debunked conspiracy theory. it wont create policy change.
as for mr. jones, he encourages us
(his radio listeners and other audiences) to make as many copies of his
films as possible and distribute them - so obviously he's not money
grubbing, and posts an insane amount of content (yes it's content) on
his sites for free or cheap - 15 cents a day for everything he's ever
done over the last 10 years. i'm not saying he doesn't make money, but
if he really wanted to make money he'd do something that would allow
him access to the institutions (like Oprah!) that would promote him to
more people - and make him more money. like i said to momz, i can be
on CNN instead of the other brown dood and say "New Orleans is just
fine!", but i won't... No. Alex Jones found his niche and he is making what money he can off it. He's smart to tell his people to spread the word and pass out his material - because that will lead people back to his radio show and keep him pure. But rest assured, he is in it for the pay cheque. But anyway - thats ad hominem too. Everyone has an interest, thats why we look at their arguments and analysis instead. and his are not rigorous.
> i refuse to believe in the validity of failed status quo arguments,
>> *Really? Refusing to believe whats before your eyes is the mark of
> zealot. Which failed status quo arguments? what about status quo
> that have NOT failed...or that you thought had failed but now realise
> havent? *
i agree, it's Nazi'esque zealotry to believe that things are going well
when we all know otherwise, No. Its nazi-esque zealotry to hate and kill jews and round up minorities and put them in gas chambers and brutality destroy them there. You really need to stop using that imagery. it is quite tasteless. But I know that you are trying to refer to german compacency. But its non-sequitur since instead of rounding up every muslim and making them wear a star, they are bending over backwards to intigrate them and distinguish islam from terrorist - even to the extent of ignoring the place that religion plays in this conflict.
and to trust those selling that message to
us when they've already proven to be liars. I trust the evidence as set out by lots of indepent bloggers and lots and lots of engineers, surveyors and experts who are dealing with the issues in a serious and analytical way. You cant have it both ways. Either a tiny cabal did this and the post-disaster analysts are honest - or the conspiracy theory is vast and includes them all. thousands of them. and that is grossly untenable. Which again doesnt matter - because there is TONS of primary source evidence for september 11th. A plethora of eyewitness accounts and photos. There are websites that debunk all the claims made in the conspiracy videos. Ive watched your videos. I read your magazine. I reviewed the counterpoint analysis. it is clear which is more compelling. But I can only lead you to the water. I cant make you drink.
but, that's where we're at
because we're being victimized by an updated style of Nazi propaganda
and control, and we're facing what Joseph Goebbels wanted in a media
system: "an ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity". Media is oversaturated with corporate ownership and yet still retains diversity of voice. The blogosphere has effectively broken the stranglehold in some ways. freedom of the press remains imperfect but it is better than anywhere else at any other time. We live in a free society where we can have this discussion and tons of corporate media employees can criticize the government at will. 24 hours a day. And they do. Including Jon Stewart and even Alex Jones. Thats a far cry from Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, Communist China, much of the middle east including Saddam Hussein's Iraq and even Russia currently. Yet you think the U.S. government is the great bad guy. Its a trifle bizarre. You think the press doesnt cover your conspiracy theories because they are in league with the cabal. Whereas the real reason is that an examination of ther conspiracy theory by a rigorous journalist leaves that journalist with no story. The only story that does exist is the existence of the conspiracy theorist movement. and that, as you pointed out, has been reported on.
you just buy into the "official" critiques from the same sources that
lied - something that's insane on it's face. No. There's lots of very unofficial critiques I reviewed. You ignore them. there are more out there as well - debunking the Bin Ladens ring hypothesis etc. But you argue a totology. anyone who doesnt agree with you is defined as official and therefore as a liar. again, dude, its cult logic.
In addition, you again fail to analyse your implicit premise. Either the entire government and the media is in on it or its just a small group of co-conspirators. You simply dont understand how government in a western democracy functions if you think the entire government is covering it up. You refuse to analyse all the work that has been done rigorously analyzing what happened on that day. Instead all you have is an ad hominem dismissal of a vaguely identified "them". I wont call your approach "insane". Its perfectly rational way to behave when you want to continue believing in a weak argument. I will call it "self serving."
it's also zealous to
suggest that the status quo approaches to problems are working - the
solutions aren't. to wit: attacking the middle-east was supposed to
make us safer... does anybody believe that we are? does anybody
believe in the media who sold us that? why wouldn't what they're
saying now prove to be a lie - as happens every 6 months or so? I didnt say attacking the middle east made us safer. Its a different discussion. If you want to have that discussion we can. I thought we were talking about a false flag 9/11.
> when it comes to the "War on Drugs/Terror/Illiteracy" etc., Chris
> and Alex Jones
> *A comedian and a radio kook charlatan*
yeah, with nothing to prove, and looking for nothing but the truth: I like Rock and I agree with lots of his funny poignant observations - but he is looking for a laugh and Jones is looking for an audience. *I* in this discussion am the one looking for nothing but the truth.
Rock's stuff is funny 'cause it's true, Jones' stuff is true because
it's heavily sourced - and that's why his fanbase has grown massively
over the 10 years he's been saying the same thing. Alex Jones is P.T. Barnum. You are letting yourself become one of his one minute born suckers.
media sources (or "experts") work for Think Tanks backed by millions of
dollars of corporate and right-wing money in a carefully planned and
executed strategy to control opinion consistently across every media
source - you can SEE it. the same money owns the media that grants the
access and selects the talking heads, and then they only grant access
to talking heads that promote their corporate-fascist agenda - or
severely limiting the airtime of anyone who's not part of a Think Tank.
oh they'll let some criticism happen - c'mon, of course, they have to
so it's believable, but it's just a watered down version of "Fox"
across the board - and the rest of the world is laughing at us just
like we laugh at those who watch Fox News, albeit they're a little more
scared too. Ad hominem again... Sure beats dealing with how easily the evidence of the false flag theory is debunked. Money IS a problem in media reporting - especially in the United States. You are right about that much though. Once again though, you see a brilliant masterminded plan led by shadowy forces. The world is a heck of a lot more complex than that.
why do you think such a massive alternative media putsch
happened? people were sick of being lied to. I completely agree with this. We are just disagreeing about whether one particular scenario was a lie. You, on the other hand think everything they say is a lie because it comes from them. That isnt how it works. You also think all the rich folks at the top - in media, government and business - are a bunch of dancing, colluding friends. that isnt how it works either. But you never define which ones are or arent and to what degree. Which rich folks volunteered to die, and give up their office space, and generally get royally fucked over in pursuit of the master plan on september 11th? Which Pentagon Generals voted to attack their own HQ. Its really kind of hilarious.
oh - and i don't think
that "celebrities" are any lesser for their opinions than you and i,
and in fact, with their money, power and access to people with more of
the same, i'd say they have a better idea about this stuff than most.
so, if they still say it and risk the right-wing echo-chamber backlash,
it's added credibility to me... I was pointing out that you only quote from easy populist sources. You need better sources of information. But any better sources of information are, by definition, compromised. right?
> have both said it best when they say these initiatives
> only exacerbate the problems - or create wholly new ones.
>> *They certainly can. There are excellent arguments against the War on
> and the War on Drugs that does not require you to trumpet easily
> claims with respect to controlled demolitions inside three office
> towers in
> downtown new york. *
there's a consistent pattern of screwing us that i'm identifying. you
don't see them as related, whereas i see that if you track back the
money far enough it's the same people making fortunes off misery. I see lots of things as connected. None of them relate back to a false flag operation on september 11, 2001
> i don't
> trust the people who drove us into a ditch to drive us out (Jon
> Stewart), Thats fine. I dont trust the people who read a road sign that says 50 miles to Nebraska and insist that its a government plot to make us all drive to saskatchewan instead, despite an overwhelming amount of evidence that its actually 50 fucking miles to Nebraska.
>> *Me neither. Thank goodness for term limits. And I would like to make
> wager with you now, for any amount of money you would like - that
> George W.
> Bush leaves office on schedule. You seem to think he will declare
> law and stay in power. I bet that he doesnt. I will give you odds if
> like. How about 10 to 1 odds. I will give you $1000 if you are right
> and you
> give me $100 when (I mean "if" I am right)*
nope, no dice. i can only prove what i can prove - that we're heading
for a fascist police state, not that we'll get there - that's what i'm
trying to help stop. Heh. I didnt think it was worth $100 bucks to you. But you keep on moving that bar back. I love watching predictions recede like the tide.
whether Bush is in as dictator or not is
irrelevant - though certainly possible with his control of the Supreme
Court and Attorney General too, Than put your money where your mouth is.
what's clearer to me is that someone of
his numerous obvious failings could not remain in power unless there's
a tonne of backers Absolutely true. Just not really in exactly the way you mean it, I dont think. But yes, the idiot dauphin has many powerful backers.
such as the ones convincing you to argue with me. Stop saying silly things like that. Oh...I forgot...YOU are the free thinking elect who sees the truth. I am the Sheeple. baaaaah. baaaaah. Feed me more grain, my corporate masters. baaaaaaah. Honestly, spare me.
they may not get all of you on the same page - we live in a world where
we're trained to bitch about bullshit, but they are succeeding in
convincing us to act "normal" in the face of his increasing
consolidation of power, I already explained this. The fact that we are willing to embrace Acts like the Patriot Act or the Terrorism Act is because it doesnt affect the vast majority directly. There is absolutely nothing wrong, though, with protesting it. What is wrong is prefacing all your good arguments with the false flag 9/11 stuff.
and getting us to say "he's not that bad!" to
the people who've learned he's worse - until later we'll say "uh...
maybe you were right"
He's a twit. He just didnt orchestrate 9/11.
as happened to me recently with a friend over the
NSA spying on EVERYONE. More power to them. All 200 of them. or 2000. Gotta make for busy days, all that spying on my email...
and, they're shielding him from criticism that
has any impact. Really? he's at 35% or something right now. Because of overwhelming criticism...that is having an overwhelming impact. He remains in power because in a republic they have fixed election dates and because the republican controlled congress would not introduce impeachment legislation. Personally, I pray to GOD that he doesnt get impeached. Because if he does, then Cheney could run and win the next election with an incumbents advantage.
so, they may just put someone else in - competent or
not, it doesn't matter, and run the same Nazi propaganda on us again to
keep him in. Thankfully we have you and Alex Jones to counteract the "Nazi Propaganda" of all those Columbia trained journalists at "corporate shill" magazines like Harpers. Whew.
and they'll use it to go to war too, like they're trying
now with Iran... They are desperately seeking detente with Iran. As they did with North Korea. Yes - they would much prefer to go in with guns blazing and take out those regimes. But the reality that they are already dangerously overextended appears to be winning the day. But honestly, pretending that Iran isnt a threat...that the US is the bad guy and the Ayatollahs are the misunderstood victims...well: I think I'll stay on the side of the US. thanks.
> and from what i can tell they're driving us straight to
>> *Not really. thinks generally continue to improve if you look at most
> mortality and life expectancy graphs. But hey - they are certainly
> some interesting policy choices. *
actually they're not, but i digress. and, all the other metrics are
worsening across the board too. in fact, i've dared people to name one
single thing the Bush Administration has done to improve the world, and
they can't. Sorry: the Bush administration hasnt done one single thing to improve the world. if it did, it was done by the professional bureaucracy on the many files that dont command the presidents attention. I am talking about world metrics. Not Bush administration achievements.
they can say "we're gettin' em!" but not "we're safer!",
so they kind of cancel each other out, especially since one of the New
Nazi Name Brands was "The Long War". and... there's nothing else. "Hey kids. lets play a game! When BK calls someone a Nazi we all get to drink!" "YAY"
Sorry - its getting thoroughly tiresome. But whatever - I'll let Warren Kinsella rage at you about how offensive it is. I'll just stick to calling it self serving hyperbole.
> i wrote this down last nite in my little silly notebook when i got
> "The soul of creativity is innovative juxtaposition. These days,
> does (x) have to do with (y)?" and/or "How could you believe in (x)
> say (y) too?" and other variations are commonly cited, as if certain
> ideas and thoughts can't co-exist.
>> *Certain things are non sequitur. Certain things to contradict,
> yes...it has
> always been thus.*
yeah, but the best non-sequiters become normal and appreciated anyway,
it's how culture evolves. so, to deny the free association of these
elements and a democratic appraisal - i.e. "the cream will rise to the
top - or those who want some will drink it" is a new danger. they're
turning the clock back on freedoms we've won, and denying the peaceful
co-existence of diverse ideas is just one tool... the idea that the bush administration created 9/11 isnt a diverse idea. its an easily disprovable conspiracy thoery. it isnt attacked or ignored because it threatens people. Its attacked and ignored because its silly.
> This is a hallmark of neo-fascism:
> *And basic logic?? or is that against your creed?*
nope, it's just "in style". to wit: the Right is shitting on
celebrities like they have no right to say what they say and have no
business discussing politics. oh well, that's that then.
They shit on celebrities because they have high levels of attention and low levels of education on things they talk about - their analysis is generally that of the facile leftist. and people who know better get annoyed when they get a platform to talk about things that they demonstrably dont understand.
> a focused discouragement of "new" or "unique" thought that helps
> that ideas that "power" says are not supposed to be linked are not;
>> *You are confusing power with logic. logic is the antidote to
> dangerous power. its why reason is so much better than religion as a
> governing force. You are also starting to sound like a cult member.*
nope, i'm saying that there are institutions that have power over us
and control what we think. that's just a fact. i mean, where'd you
get your "facts" you so forcefully defend from? Yes. I know. because you have never been in any of those institutions you dont understand how they work. So they seem like an alien force of super-geniuses. When really they are just bureaucrats at work. the idea that institutions exist that "control what we think" is not a "fact". its a bald assertion with no careful definition being given to "control what we think". We actually have the most free press and society in history throughout the current western world. (minusing some for post 9/11 cowardice in the US and triple plussing the internet)
> reinforcement of you and the "other" who doesn't share your list of
> values - and thus can't be trusted;
>> *This is what YOU are doing, not what "power" is doing. in logic it
> is also
> called an ad hominem attack.*
actually, "power" has proven to screw people for millenia, so i'm just
striking back against the empire.
OK, Luke Skywalker. You go get that deathstar...
the fact that you'd accuse me of an
"ad hominem attack" is evidence of how vigorously you'll defend power -
a historical concern - over people. the fact that I would accuse you of an "ad hominem attack" is evidence only of you making repeated ad hominem attacks. Saying I defend power over people is, I dont know what, just a smear that doesnt really affect the argument. Power is made up of people. This isnt a treatise on power structures. its a discussion of a false flag operation being done on 9/11. and its clear that the conspiracy theorists are writing bunk. I have no personal investment in it being bunk. If someone did it, I would want to know. they just didnt do it.
the irony is killing me
To quote Inigo Montoya: "That word. I do not think it means what you think it means"
- and i'm
glad that's the only thing, while the criticism itself is making me
laugh. but, it is evidence of where it's going towards in your
"logical" paradigm of "stop attacking the government!", and that's
troubling - like they can't defend themselves.
You are putting words in my mouth. Ive criticised the government many times in this discussion. The logical fallacy you are doing there is called a "Straw Man".
it's been said (by Lord
Acton) that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely",
so out of the 200+ countries in the world, you tell me who comes closer
to absolute power than the U.S . govt - and absolute corruption... And thats just argument by cliche. Lord Acton would need to be right. then its axiomatic that your conclusion is true.You know that there are actually academics that measure corruption, right? and that the U.S . is low on the list of corruption, while impoverished nations are often very high. All part of the conspiracy, right?
> and an active encouragement of
> peer-suppression of questions and creativity - THIS was the X-Files
>> *So your basic rebuttal to attacks on your evidence is that your
> thinking is just creativity, and rebuttals to it are just the man
> trying to
> stifle your creativity? *
nope, i'm saying while we had a healthy appetite for "conspiracy" in
the past since we knew for sure that hundreds existed and each had our
own we could cite. this new trend of "shut up!" is disturbing. the
creativity comes in the questioning - you need to be creative with what
evidence you have when no one is asking the questions for you, and yet
when it comes to 9/11 people have been trained to get very, very, very,
very angry if you question it. so there, we've moved quite far from an
open and easygoing society, and frankly it's out of fear: if the 9/11
stuff was as flakey as saying a giant gorilla is going to attack the
Empire State Building, then people wouldn't flip. the problem is we
know The Bush Administration more evil than we know - we keep finding
more evil every week, so deep down we're scared to even examine it... No. I wasnt scared. I examined it. Its poppycock. The funny part is that its more poppycock than it needs to be. its not enough for the theorists to say that CIA agents flew the planes. They have to be drone planes and there needs to be explosives in the buildings. Its not even a GOOD conspiracy theory. Its just the most recent one - and unlike the JFK assassination, it has the internet to fuel it.
> so yeah, that's why i had a smoke this morning with a white
> city-maintenance worker on his lunch on a park bench, and we scoped
> chicks while i spoke "cracka" (my man JK-47 and i were just goofin'
> that stuff - he a white dood) which evolved into "bigga" over the 10
> minutes; that's why i'm flexing slang with people who know perfectly
> well that i don't need to use it - and flipping back and forth;
> why i love 50 Cent and G'n'R and Dido; that's why everybody got a
> nickname and i'm handing out hip hop street-cred like Scooby-Snacks;
> and that's why i can come up with some dope shit that makes the
> connections that we haven't seen yet or refuse to see:
>> *Creativity is a virtue. It does not make the idea true however. As
> Ive said
> before in debates. Ideas are not fish. in order to be good fish needs
> to be
> new. old fish is very bad. new ideas are often terrible, and old
> ideas are
> often very good.*
yeah, but we have proof these "new" ideas suck - including
globalization - a "new" update on the "old" idea of colonialism.
I am very in favor of globalisation (depending on how you define it, I suppose) but thats an other discussion. Funny how all your responses throughout this whole thing spin what I said in a new direction while ignoring my substantive criticisma.
people don't want it,
Im the people. I want it.
they're concerns are ignored - along with their
own "new" ideas. old ideas like "thou shalt not kill" are still pretty
cool with me, and frankly i think your whole analogy smells like dead
fish: the age of the idea has nothing to do with how good it is, only
the quality of analysis and the results of it's implementation. I agree. with this. and that was exactly my point. But the quality of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists analysis is very bad.
> EVERYONE says the world is getting worse,
>> *No they dont. Alarmists do. Alarmists may be right though (although
> I dont
> think they are. all evidence is actually to the contrary if you look
> things historically. but it depends on your metrics of measurement.
> conservatives and reactionary islamists certainly think the world is
> worse as we all practice our whorish hedonistic behavior. I disagree.
> judgement call, really)*
it's my experience that everyone thinks it's getting worse, they think
prices are going up, they're worried about the economy, the war, their
health, the people in power, terrorism... a tonne of stuff. just
because people are having "fun" doesn't mean in general that they are
pessimistic about the future, that's much of what i noticed - and why
people are tuning out of the news.
Again - not on the original topic. and Ive responded to it already.
> and yet most are not looking
> to anyone but the ones running it into the ground for an explanation
> including all the critics and pundits and talking heads that never
> seem to get us off our asses to figure out a way to save it,
>> *You sound like Lenin and his gang of idiots who decided to re-make
> world with communism and no currency, then spent years fixing what
> broke. *
okay. i didn't sound like that to me. if you think things aren't
broken now, then i guess you're doing fine. but, to ignore the
billions of people suffering around the world, you're also selfish,
lazy or crazy. and, to think we can't make a better world than this...
well, that's just sad.
I dont ignore them. All my education was about improving the world for them and so is my job. Heck most of my jobs. its just that solving problems of poverty is quite technical. it requires more work than taking to the street or blogging.
> the fact that there are literally millions of people with millions of
> solutions out there worth exploring - and thus millions of options
> the corporate media to choose from. they don't, and they uniformly
> dismiss or ignore the efforts and interests of literally billions of
> people in desperate need of a change for the better - including
> millions here.
>> *Those solutions need to work their way through the policy process
> and be
> rigorously analysed. Lots of them will turn out to be crap. Lots of
> are based on a tired old us vs. them, rich vs. poor paradigm and are
> thoroughly unworkable. *
the policy processes don't allow it - e.g. why are their experts on
"war" but never experts on "peace" in the media? and for you to trust
the same people who happily approved brutally oppressive policies in
the past to all of a sudden approve "good" ones is insane - why the
hell does the world both love and hate the U.S.? they love what they
say and hate what they do - so your processes don't mean shit in
practice. it's also why the U.S. tried to overthrow Hugo Chavez (a
fact casually discussed in media around the world), because he said:
"FUCK YOUR PROCESSES!" lots of countries have tried to do it "right"
using your precious processes: take huge loans with massive interest
payments, then privatize everything you own and sell it cheaply to the
West - leaving your people owning nothing where they live and indebted
slaves to the infrastructure set up to rape them for their resources.
alternatives that truly benefit people and are quick and easy to
implement really exist (see: Chavez again), and they're only
unreasonable and subject to bureaucratic bullshit in a fascist model of
governance. ta-daa! don't defend it man, it's beneath you... ;)You want to be a raving chavez leftist go right ahead. You are raising many different discussions at once. It still doesnt mean that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US. The US has real enemies. You seem to think their grievances are real. and yet you need to make your bad guy even badder by turning him into Edward Norton in Fight Club in that scene with his boss where he beats himself bloody. You would be better served by focussing on policies rather than on conspiracy theories, my friend.
> screw that.
> i'm'a find dat elusive turd way homie... ;)
>> *finding a new workable approach will certainly require a great deal
> rigor than you are currently demonstrating. That is, if you actually
> want to
> make a real difference and improve people's lives. In the meantime,
> out of bed with the kooks and at least ally yourself with radical
> who actually confront reality instead of trying to reinvent it to
> suit their
> purposes. *
it's easy to look at people trying to save the world and blame them for
not doing it successfully - i'm studying that right now. basically
it's a selfish lazy reflex, if you're not going to do something then
you may as well shit on the idea of doing anything at all - Yeah world savers hate when guys like me point out that they are full of shit and too lazy to do the work to come up with real workable policy changes in a disciplined fashion.
No... if you want to change the world, you should set up thinktanks like the OECD and analyze ideas carefully and then spread the ones that work. You should have freedom of academic thought and all sorts of competing ideas. Kind of like we currently have. You should allow for peaceful but angry protest and lots of internet sites that call the president a bastard. thats important too. and I know you think theres a police state every time a black flag protestor gets put in the cool off tank, or when security forces post 9/11 get paranoid about cameras. But thats a distortion of whats really going on and the motivations for it. Nevertheless, Im glad people are there to keep an eye on it. I do believe civil liberties need to be constantly defended or we can lose them. so I have no problem with you keeping up the fight.
it seem like it's not worth it, and justifies inaction. this is all
"learned" behaviour that needs to be "unlearned", and it's mostly from
right-wing media sources who don't give a crap about most people and
their needs and promote the demonization of "welfare mothers", among
others who can't defend themselves easily in the media. i'm not
replacing it with a single point of view: the forces currently at work
are. to wit: there's a "safe" realm of criticism you respect that
you'll suggest i operate in, and everything else is crap. Yes. The stuff that stands up to scrutiny. Thats the litmus test. nothing more or nothing less.
my point, and i see the whole spectrum from jon stewart to alex jones
as working for the same thing: defending freedom. i like a "big tent"
party, they're telling you to shrink the tent, and to only respect
certain voices. that's how they're continuing to gain control over
dissent: You sure do love them pronouns. Pronouns are helpful. they keep your targets vague so you can expand or shrink your net as it suits the argument.
this is the acceptable stuff, this isn't - it's crazy! next
is "free speech zones" - this is a respectable place to speak freely,
this isn't -
it's crazy!, and on and on and on.
the force of your
denial is proof what they're doing is working, How would I deny if they werent doing it? what would be the appropriate tone if it wasnt happening? If it wasnt happening how would I react to you saying it? You see, BK , the fact that you are calling me disagreeing with you "proof" of what you say they are doing is working demonstrates how stinkin' you've let your thinkin' become.
and that's just not cool
man. you'll confidently know both sides you've been given and trust
nothing else - as if there isn't more out there with the millions of
points of view that never see the light of day in the consistent
homogenous drone of the mass media. then they'll just weaken the
acceptable criticism to the point where it's meaningless - like now.
they need to keep a credible debate going that doesn't actually change
any of their plans or slow down their police state initiatives, so
thanks for letting me know how well they've succeeded... You are not in favor of a credible debate. if you were you wouldnt believe that WTC7 was blown up by a false flag operation when evidence explaining the truth is at the websites I showed you and in many serious, non-biased reports and the truth is backed up by evidence of the full eye witness accounts of the day (unless the firemen are in on it too). You would have seen all the other pictures of Bib Laden wearing a ring. You would have seen the full confession tape where Bin Laden actually looks like Bin Laden rather than the few still shots that make him appear different. You would have seen the engineering reports explaining the falling pattern of the towers. You would have acknowledged that it is unlikely that a team of super puppet masters with a perfectly loyal special forces task force available to blow up downtown manhatten would also have managed to put some anthrax in a barn in Iraq.
In short - rather than focussing on real evidence and attacking the administration for its real crimes, you are interested in making Bush into a perfectly evil caricature and you will dismiss any evidence that does not conform to your pre-existing hypothesis. You are the one(s) suppressing "credible debate". You, my friend, have let yourself become a sheep to spoonfed disinformation. Not me.
Peace by playing with each other...
Black Krishna Brand
Philosophy - http://blackkrishna.blogspot.com/
Music - http://www.soundclick.com/bands/0/blackkrishna.htm
P.S. Watch "Loose Change - 2nd Edition" on Google Video!
P.P.S. Check this out too while you still can!
Congress is pushing a law that would abandon the Internet's First Amendment -- a principle called Network Neutrality that prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you -- based on what site pays them the most. If the public doesn't speak up now, our elected officials will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign.