The only thing worse than a damned fool is a professional damned fool. There are many reasons why Americans remain functionally asleep to the reality of their Globalist imposed tyranny, but one of the main ones is certainly our state of profound ignorance. Upon occasion I marvel at just how hard I had tried to become well informed by relying on mainstream sources, such as NPR and MSNBC, and just how laughably impossible that turned out to be. Before independent internet based media arrived to revive the corpse of journalism in this country, I had essentially given up any hope of receiving accurate and contextually rich information.
Had I even been aware that the many blatant discrepencies of the official explanation of 9/11 were "on the table," so to speak, in terms of discussion-worthy topics, I would've displayed a passionate interest. But the MSM, between 2001 and 2006 performed their sociological hypnotism extraordinarily well, as to repel any serious look at the event. But sometime in 2006-7, this changed. Enough of a clamor had grown, enough voices had joined in, to make the chorus of 9/11 truth just barely audible within the nooks and crannies of the internet. Simultaneously, the MSM, through increasingly lackluster attempts to coherently address our deeply rooted problems, was and still is churning out hordes of intellectually hungry discontents like myself, who inevitably gravitate toward the truth movement.
This summarizes the response that I and many others have had to a first encounter with truly independent media. There is, however, another all too common response to this hidden class of information. Some people have simply decided, perhaps subconsciously, that the acknowledgment that they've been utterly and comprehensively lied to since birth is either too frightening or too threatening to the ego to allow to occur. This is a morally hazardous choice to make because as soon as one chooses to ignore looming threats, one is volunteering themselves up as dependent of those who do choose to address these problems. This simple point is lost on many of us, who have been so effectively trained to only seriously consider the question of what to consume and when to consume it. We are meant to feel as alienated from as much of the structure of governance as possible.
This is another big barrier between many people and the horrendous reality of crimes like 9/11 and the Federal Reserve Act. To examine these crimes is to examine the true cost of our monolithically shallow consumer culture, which has captivated us like shiny objects do a baby. To admit that this is our reality is to admit that we are all sick and in need of healing. Much easier to indulge in racism, sports, and beer.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Chemtrails N.J (2)
Three fresh, skinny ones ontop of what appear to be dissipating clouds from earlier chemtrails.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Anti-Filesharing = Anti-Art
Go back to school and get your marketing degree if you're so concerned with turning a profit. Salesmen and profiteers have been stealing the limelight away from real artists for far too long, anyway, so it'd probably work out for the best. You'd still get to dress in physical and spiritual costume while making a buck, and we get our sacred form of communication back.
It's truly a blessing to live in a society in which it's possible to make a living, and sometimes even become rich, by the simple act of making art. However it's become undeniable over the past few decades, that the average big musical act is a black void of talent or substance, hopelessly detached from any real artistic process.
Even many artists with better reputations than your typical anti-piracy crybabies still seem to have lost their perspective on this issue. For example, a friend of mine recently mentioned that Muse had spoken out against filesharing. Not more than a few hours later I was looking at the booklet for their album "haarp," and I see a picture of one of the members wearing what appear to be a silver-coated pair of custom Adidas, or some similar brand. They are tacky and ridiculous and look like something Bruno would wear. They were also probably extremely and needlessly expensive.
Is this why Muse wants filesharing to stop? So they can continue to feed their pointless retarded ugly shoe habit, along with any other stupid extravagant nonsense they've embraced since getting signed? So they can continue to follow the sickeningly pompous trend of anti-bands like U2? Is it a coincidence that nearly all performers who oppose filesharing, are also prone to spending $10,000 to look like a retard onstage? I have the sneaking suspicion that this type of wasteful nonsense is precisely what these fake artists are defending, when they complain about filesharing. It's not about receiving a fair return for performing art, since that was never these people's intention. It's about pushing product. Which is why they're so upset about the deflating racket formerly known as the "recording industry."
Ultimately, these problems are all primarily attributable to the sleazy recording industry, who for a long time now have been treating music and art as nothing more than a pop culture commodity. Since bad, dumb music is more accessible, this is what's predominantly pushed, not because record execs like bad dumb music, but because bad dumb music simply has more marketing power.
Instead of being a beacon, tempting people to reach higher, music and art have overwhelmingly become an enabler of negativity, beckoning people to sink lower. This is why we shouldn't feel bad for these weasels, or their shrinking industry at all. It's Brittany Spears and Metallica who are dying. Radiohead and Trent Reznor are doing just fine.
It's truly a blessing to live in a society in which it's possible to make a living, and sometimes even become rich, by the simple act of making art. However it's become undeniable over the past few decades, that the average big musical act is a black void of talent or substance, hopelessly detached from any real artistic process.
Even many artists with better reputations than your typical anti-piracy crybabies still seem to have lost their perspective on this issue. For example, a friend of mine recently mentioned that Muse had spoken out against filesharing. Not more than a few hours later I was looking at the booklet for their album "haarp," and I see a picture of one of the members wearing what appear to be a silver-coated pair of custom Adidas, or some similar brand. They are tacky and ridiculous and look like something Bruno would wear. They were also probably extremely and needlessly expensive.
Is this why Muse wants filesharing to stop? So they can continue to feed their pointless retarded ugly shoe habit, along with any other stupid extravagant nonsense they've embraced since getting signed? So they can continue to follow the sickeningly pompous trend of anti-bands like U2? Is it a coincidence that nearly all performers who oppose filesharing, are also prone to spending $10,000 to look like a retard onstage? I have the sneaking suspicion that this type of wasteful nonsense is precisely what these fake artists are defending, when they complain about filesharing. It's not about receiving a fair return for performing art, since that was never these people's intention. It's about pushing product. Which is why they're so upset about the deflating racket formerly known as the "recording industry."
Ultimately, these problems are all primarily attributable to the sleazy recording industry, who for a long time now have been treating music and art as nothing more than a pop culture commodity. Since bad, dumb music is more accessible, this is what's predominantly pushed, not because record execs like bad dumb music, but because bad dumb music simply has more marketing power.
Instead of being a beacon, tempting people to reach higher, music and art have overwhelmingly become an enabler of negativity, beckoning people to sink lower. This is why we shouldn't feel bad for these weasels, or their shrinking industry at all. It's Brittany Spears and Metallica who are dying. Radiohead and Trent Reznor are doing just fine.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Gibronosity
The Gibroney Hunter: So tired of people using the "youtube is your source?! how ridiculous!" This is one of the dumbest things you can say because clearly youtube is what you make of it, meaning that if you wanna watch hampsters play piano you can, and if you want to watch documentaries or news clips, you can do that too. Really, it totally depends on how YOU choose to use youtube. Youtube videos have sources just like anything shown on television. If it's from ABC it says so. If it's from the AP it says so.
Some Gibroney: The problem with that is...many people post what they want..and call it a fact or a truth..when it is not. Then someone...who doesn't know any better sees it and propagates it as fact. There is NO accountability or social responsibility on YT. That is the problem. Anyone..and I MEAN anyone can post. IN FACT corporations have posted videos that they intended to influence people on YT and say that they are by one person..but they have THEIR own Monetary agendas. JUST ask AL GORE and HIS PENGUINS.
The Gibroney Hunter: They just arrested a group of punk kids who were going around tackling people unexpectedly, and a bunch of other cheap pranks. They were identified and are now facing charges. So I disagree that there's no accountability. I don't believe that there's any social responsibility on television, or radio, or print, or anywhere else, really.. which is the whole point. Youtube is simply a medium on which to post all other media. It is what you make it, plain and simply. It's the viewer'sresponsibility to fact check while watching a youtube video just as it is when watching a national geographic documentary. People don't suddenly become more stupid and unable to discern between shit and shinola, just because they're on a site called youtube. It's a childish argument to try to hide behind the perceived illegitimacy of youtube, rather than addressing any of the points being made during the film. The claim of there being no evidence is also ridiculous. Google Dr. Steven Jones and his research regarding the presence of nano-thermite in the dust debris from 9/11. So far his findings have been corroborated by at least 9 other physicists. Also there's the massive amount of insider trading that took place directly before the terror attacks. These are just two examples from volumes of evidence. This evidence is not about determining who DID perpetrate the attacks. That's getting ahead of ourselves. First we have to deal with the obvious fact that the official story is simply false.
Some Gibroney: I work with the govt..and when I'm trying to get something accomplished..it's like pulling out my own teeth to get it done. I like to use the term "it moves at the speed of govt" It's another reason why I don't THINK the conspiracy theory works. Far too complicated. TOO many unnecessary steps in the dance. They could have streamlined the whole thing. Of course..that is my opinion..if there is/was a conspiracy. Just playing the devils advocate.
The Gibroney Hunter: How could they have streamlined the whole thing? 9/11 wasn't just about dragging America into another illegitimate war, the establishment can do that anytime they wish. The point of 9/11, from their perspective, was to shock and awe the American public into not only supporting war efforts, but to usher in a more oppressive environment here at home, which is exactly what was accomplished with the Patriot Act, now renewed by our "Liberal" president. They wanted another Vietnam, but without the pesky freedom of speech or right to assemble aspect of it, which eventually shut down the war machine. This time, that problem would be accounted for. Hence the nightmarish snuff film of 9/11 shown to the American people by the Banker-controlled Media puppets, for the purpose of shocking us into accepting a much more Orwellian state.
Some Gibroney: Ok...stream line it..by..Lets not have these guys training on aircraft they won't be using. Let's take them off continent to a base or friendly country and train on the acyual aircraft they are going to use. Then LETS really pack this things with explosives or whatever. We won't chance them living in a rented home in FLA and talking to people. Why chance them going through an airport and being compromised.. Just fly straight in on commercial routes. TOO many steps to the dance. That's true..but the objective was different. There was a common goal for the good of the nation. I can't believe that not of those people..did not have a conscience and wouldn't step forward and talk either before or after. 7 years is a long time to keep from being compromised. We also didn't have the internet...where we can remain nameless and face less and leak tons on Intel with out having to be named. It just doesn't add up to me.. Of course you still have to prove that IS what happened.
The Gibroney Hunter: Sybel Edmonds, former F.B.I translator recently broke her federal gag order by announcing to the media (who curiously enough didnt' cover it) that U.S intelligence had communication and was in collusion with Osama Bin Laden UP TO THE VERY DAY OF 9/11. So you no longer have to believe that not one of those people did not have a conscience and speak out. Of course, there are many other examples of individuals speaking out. I don't have to prove anything happened, only that we've been lied to by the federal government about 9/11 so extensively as to warrant a new and truly independent investigation, which is a point that has been overwhelmingly proven over and over again. You're correct that someone could post information anonymously on the internet, but without authentication of source, no one would believe it. Without a credible journalist to stand by the story, no one would take it seriously. And no journalist (not even the very few good ones) would put their neck on the line for an unverified online source that could be a teenager pranking them for all they know. Internet or not, sources still need to be just as verifiable now as they did 40 years ago, in order to be credible by journalistic standards. Your statements regarding the "hijackers" is supported by the assumption that the were more than merely patsies. Many have argued that their ridiculous behavior at the flight schools (their instructors have gone on record saying they don't see how Hanyur could have piloted that airbus into the pentagon), obnoxious behavior at strip clubs.. was meant to attract attention to them. It's not uncommon for intelligence services to employ individuals to take part in drills and other exercises. This is a possible explanation for some of the hijackers (at least 6 of whom have come out publicly, stating that they're still alive, by the way). Rather than being idle speculation, this is a very critical line of inquiry that SHOULD have been addressed by the fraudulent 9/11 Commission.
Some Gibroney: That's definitely where we are on the same page. I'm all for an independent investigation. I don't care what the outcome is. I'm indifferent. I just want facts and truth through due process and the diligence to be accurate and thorough. That means proving ever accusation and not just speculating on very limited info at best. Like I said..that has been my point all along. IF the FACTS take us there...then that's where we go. But don't try to LEAD the evidence there. That's JUST WRONG. Agreed but..here there are two crimes you are required by law to report. can you guess what they are?. CHILD abuse..and TREASON. So Osama..doesn't have any obligation..and besides we already know he doesn't like the infidels. So it stands to reason from his history..he knew of something...and if he had anything to do with the planning...then he is guilty. it's still conspiracy to commit a terrorist act. Once again I am speculating he knows something or had some part of it. I can't prove it. Airbus? To my knowledge it was a 757. I also think the pilot school instructors were speculating. I 've worked with complete idiots..but when they had to get something done...they DID. Which six were these? You make a point about being CREDIBLE..and that is also my point about YT. YOU can be anyone on here..BARKING up a storm...but a lot of it..is purely misinformation..that they pass on as FACT that they heard somewhere else. That doesn't make any of it fact or even true.. I dislike YT for that reason. ZERO accountability.
The Gibroney Hunter: I used the term airbus as a general term to describe a large aircraft, not as an actual description of the literal model of aircraft, and yes you're correct it was a 757. The flight instructors, having had direct experience attempting to instruct certain of the alleged hijackers, cannot be said to be speculating, but to be giving their opinion regarding Hanyur's skills. So now you're saying that people who are incompetent can suddenly become competent? Seems to run counter to your previous remarks about 9/11 being an inside job, being too "complex" to have been pulled off. Again, I simply disagree about the issue of accountability on youtube. I think the increase in voices being heard actually increases the total amount of credibility, as there are more independent criticisms available of just about any topic. I agree with you that most of what's on youtube is as you say, purely misinformation, but can you give me of an example of a medium for which that isn't true? Isn't most of what's on television also uncredible and full of misinformation (think Fox News, or NPR)? While someone's opinion expressed on youtube is completely uncensored or edited (except for obscenity), they still need to support their claims and opinions with facts if they want anyone to take them seriously. The mere fact that I am using youtube right now does not automatically make me more prone to believing uncorroborated, baseless things. "shooting the messenger" is a cop out intended by most. people as a way to divert the subject from the issue itself, which is that the crime of 9/11 clearly has not transpired in the way that we were told it did, by our government. Just do a google search for "9/11 hijackers still alive" and you will have access to all the names, dates, places relevant to the topic.
Some Gibroney: The problem with that is...many people post what they want..and call it a fact or a truth..when it is not. Then someone...who doesn't know any better sees it and propagates it as fact. There is NO accountability or social responsibility on YT. That is the problem. Anyone..and I MEAN anyone can post. IN FACT corporations have posted videos that they intended to influence people on YT and say that they are by one person..but they have THEIR own Monetary agendas. JUST ask AL GORE and HIS PENGUINS.
The Gibroney Hunter: They just arrested a group of punk kids who were going around tackling people unexpectedly, and a bunch of other cheap pranks. They were identified and are now facing charges. So I disagree that there's no accountability. I don't believe that there's any social responsibility on television, or radio, or print, or anywhere else, really.. which is the whole point. Youtube is simply a medium on which to post all other media. It is what you make it, plain and simply. It's the viewer'sresponsibility to fact check while watching a youtube video just as it is when watching a national geographic documentary. People don't suddenly become more stupid and unable to discern between shit and shinola, just because they're on a site called youtube. It's a childish argument to try to hide behind the perceived illegitimacy of youtube, rather than addressing any of the points being made during the film. The claim of there being no evidence is also ridiculous. Google Dr. Steven Jones and his research regarding the presence of nano-thermite in the dust debris from 9/11. So far his findings have been corroborated by at least 9 other physicists. Also there's the massive amount of insider trading that took place directly before the terror attacks. These are just two examples from volumes of evidence. This evidence is not about determining who DID perpetrate the attacks. That's getting ahead of ourselves. First we have to deal with the obvious fact that the official story is simply false.
Some Gibroney: I work with the govt..and when I'm trying to get something accomplished..it's like pulling out my own teeth to get it done. I like to use the term "it moves at the speed of govt" It's another reason why I don't THINK the conspiracy theory works. Far too complicated. TOO many unnecessary steps in the dance. They could have streamlined the whole thing. Of course..that is my opinion..if there is/was a conspiracy. Just playing the devils advocate.
The Gibroney Hunter: How could they have streamlined the whole thing? 9/11 wasn't just about dragging America into another illegitimate war, the establishment can do that anytime they wish. The point of 9/11, from their perspective, was to shock and awe the American public into not only supporting war efforts, but to usher in a more oppressive environment here at home, which is exactly what was accomplished with the Patriot Act, now renewed by our "Liberal" president. They wanted another Vietnam, but without the pesky freedom of speech or right to assemble aspect of it, which eventually shut down the war machine. This time, that problem would be accounted for. Hence the nightmarish snuff film of 9/11 shown to the American people by the Banker-controlled Media puppets, for the purpose of shocking us into accepting a much more Orwellian state.
Some Gibroney: Ok...stream line it..by..Lets not have these guys training on aircraft they won't be using. Let's take them off continent to a base or friendly country and train on the acyual aircraft they are going to use. Then LETS really pack this things with explosives or whatever. We won't chance them living in a rented home in FLA and talking to people. Why chance them going through an airport and being compromised.. Just fly straight in on commercial routes. TOO many steps to the dance. That's true..but the objective was different. There was a common goal for the good of the nation. I can't believe that not of those people..did not have a conscience and wouldn't step forward and talk either before or after. 7 years is a long time to keep from being compromised. We also didn't have the internet...where we can remain nameless and face less and leak tons on Intel with out having to be named. It just doesn't add up to me.. Of course you still have to prove that IS what happened.
The Gibroney Hunter: Sybel Edmonds, former F.B.I translator recently broke her federal gag order by announcing to the media (who curiously enough didnt' cover it) that U.S intelligence had communication and was in collusion with Osama Bin Laden UP TO THE VERY DAY OF 9/11. So you no longer have to believe that not one of those people did not have a conscience and speak out. Of course, there are many other examples of individuals speaking out. I don't have to prove anything happened, only that we've been lied to by the federal government about 9/11 so extensively as to warrant a new and truly independent investigation, which is a point that has been overwhelmingly proven over and over again. You're correct that someone could post information anonymously on the internet, but without authentication of source, no one would believe it. Without a credible journalist to stand by the story, no one would take it seriously. And no journalist (not even the very few good ones) would put their neck on the line for an unverified online source that could be a teenager pranking them for all they know. Internet or not, sources still need to be just as verifiable now as they did 40 years ago, in order to be credible by journalistic standards. Your statements regarding the "hijackers" is supported by the assumption that the were more than merely patsies. Many have argued that their ridiculous behavior at the flight schools (their instructors have gone on record saying they don't see how Hanyur could have piloted that airbus into the pentagon), obnoxious behavior at strip clubs.. was meant to attract attention to them. It's not uncommon for intelligence services to employ individuals to take part in drills and other exercises. This is a possible explanation for some of the hijackers (at least 6 of whom have come out publicly, stating that they're still alive, by the way). Rather than being idle speculation, this is a very critical line of inquiry that SHOULD have been addressed by the fraudulent 9/11 Commission.
Some Gibroney: That's definitely where we are on the same page. I'm all for an independent investigation. I don't care what the outcome is. I'm indifferent. I just want facts and truth through due process and the diligence to be accurate and thorough. That means proving ever accusation and not just speculating on very limited info at best. Like I said..that has been my point all along. IF the FACTS take us there...then that's where we go. But don't try to LEAD the evidence there. That's JUST WRONG. Agreed but..here there are two crimes you are required by law to report. can you guess what they are?. CHILD abuse..and TREASON. So Osama..doesn't have any obligation..and besides we already know he doesn't like the infidels. So it stands to reason from his history..he knew of something...and if he had anything to do with the planning...then he is guilty. it's still conspiracy to commit a terrorist act. Once again I am speculating he knows something or had some part of it. I can't prove it. Airbus? To my knowledge it was a 757. I also think the pilot school instructors were speculating. I 've worked with complete idiots..but when they had to get something done...they DID. Which six were these? You make a point about being CREDIBLE..and that is also my point about YT. YOU can be anyone on here..BARKING up a storm...but a lot of it..is purely misinformation..that they pass on as FACT that they heard somewhere else. That doesn't make any of it fact or even true.. I dislike YT for that reason. ZERO accountability.
The Gibroney Hunter: I used the term airbus as a general term to describe a large aircraft, not as an actual description of the literal model of aircraft, and yes you're correct it was a 757. The flight instructors, having had direct experience attempting to instruct certain of the alleged hijackers, cannot be said to be speculating, but to be giving their opinion regarding Hanyur's skills. So now you're saying that people who are incompetent can suddenly become competent? Seems to run counter to your previous remarks about 9/11 being an inside job, being too "complex" to have been pulled off. Again, I simply disagree about the issue of accountability on youtube. I think the increase in voices being heard actually increases the total amount of credibility, as there are more independent criticisms available of just about any topic. I agree with you that most of what's on youtube is as you say, purely misinformation, but can you give me of an example of a medium for which that isn't true? Isn't most of what's on television also uncredible and full of misinformation (think Fox News, or NPR)? While someone's opinion expressed on youtube is completely uncensored or edited (except for obscenity), they still need to support their claims and opinions with facts if they want anyone to take them seriously. The mere fact that I am using youtube right now does not automatically make me more prone to believing uncorroborated, baseless things. "shooting the messenger" is a cop out intended by most. people as a way to divert the subject from the issue itself, which is that the crime of 9/11 clearly has not transpired in the way that we were told it did, by our government. Just do a google search for "9/11 hijackers still alive" and you will have access to all the names, dates, places relevant to the topic.
Pantera: Founders of Street Metal
In the 1990's Pantera set the standard for every future metal band aspiring to become better/faster/stronger, and more visceral than Metallica. It was truly a golden age of the artform when Megadeth and Anthrax, and later Type O Negative and Alice In Chains would tour together with them. This was a time when metal resembled something more like a brotherhood, rather than the gathering of pretty boys, all vying to be the leader of technical and passionless proficiency, that it has primarily become these days. There are just as many good new metal bands as there were good old metal bands, though. The fact that most metal bands are garbage, only reflects the fact that there are just that many more people playing metal these days. The genre has grown healthily over the years, seemingly impervious to either mainstream praise or scorn.
There's something so purely American about Pantera. Their being from the state of Texas surely plays a part in that, but it's also something much deeper. They seem to represent, more purely than anyone before or since, the emotions and sentiments of so many frustrated and shell shocked youths in this country. Many bands have successfully reflected the themes of alienation, but when it comes to the unending boiling rage that results from it, and then the frustration that comes from the inability to find an outlet for it, Pantera is unsurpassed. Of course there are other remarkable aspects to Pantera's music, but this is the one that earns them their title of being the founders of Street Metal. No witches or goblins. No overblown antics. Just a pure reflection of both the ugliness and beauty that seethes from every street of this nation.
There's something so purely American about Pantera. Their being from the state of Texas surely plays a part in that, but it's also something much deeper. They seem to represent, more purely than anyone before or since, the emotions and sentiments of so many frustrated and shell shocked youths in this country. Many bands have successfully reflected the themes of alienation, but when it comes to the unending boiling rage that results from it, and then the frustration that comes from the inability to find an outlet for it, Pantera is unsurpassed. Of course there are other remarkable aspects to Pantera's music, but this is the one that earns them their title of being the founders of Street Metal. No witches or goblins. No overblown antics. Just a pure reflection of both the ugliness and beauty that seethes from every street of this nation.
Friday, November 27, 2009
The Gibroney Hunter Vs. The Hutch: Global Warming
The Hutch: I was arguing about this with my conservative christian friend. One group of scientists doing bad science does not damn the science itself. There are still mountains - MOUNTAINS! - of good science being done all over the world. Look at the stuff coming out of India, China, and Antarctica, for example.
Fact is, we know we are producing more CO2 than ever. This much is certain. And we know that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. These two facts together, paired with a great deal of observed and measured evidence from all over the world leads to a very obvious and ultimate conclusion about Global Warming.
No doubt, you'd point to more than a few outliers that exist. The oft-debated "cooling "stats, for example. And these facts need further exploring. It is certainly possible that all we know about global warming could turn out to be wrong. But considering all that we DO know, we can say, at the moment, that that is highly improbable. It would be very irresponsible not to act accordingly considering the danger involved in Global Warming being a real phenomenon.
There are no 100% knowns in science. Everything is a best guess. Even gravitation is called into question by any physicist worth his salt. We can only gather the best possible evidence and act according to what seems most likely at the moment. The testing and modeling and data gathering continues, and science refines and revises.
I sincerely hope everyone's wrong about Global Warming, but a handful of corrupt scientists does not make that so.
The Gibroney Hunter: I have no doubt that much good science is done everyday around the world. My intention isn't to attack science as an institution. Quite to the contrary, it's my love and respect for true science that motivates me to try to expose the criminal monied interests that have infiltrated, and now threaten to completely and irrevocably pervert and destroy science.
You're adamant about describing this e-mail situation as a group of rogue scientists who somehow got it into their heads to try to hide evidence of global temperature declines.. as if they weren't instructed by the individuals and groups who oversee their research to do just that.
When a scientist is given funding for specific research, he/she is not permitted very much deviation from the specific task that has been chartered. Sadly, the days of research and inquiry truly being in the hands of the scientist have long since passed us. The point I'm trying to make is that I find it extremely difficult to believe that these individuals attempted to fudge the data of their own volition. That's kind of like believing that the troops at Abu Ghraib decided amongst themselves to begin torturing people, and weren't specifically instructed to do just that. The scientific mind, like just about everything else in our world, is treated by the elite like just another resource to be harnessed and misused for their purposes.
While it's true that we as a species are producing more Co2 than ever before, studies have also shown that the overall levels of Co2 in our atmosphere have actually been much higher during certain periods of geological and human history.
Another point of debate is the issue of causation, regarding Co2. Many credible scientists question which comes first.. temperature increase or Co2 increase. In other words, there's disagreement over whether our Co2 emissions are significantly increasing temperature, or vice versa.. natural climate change is triggering a planetary response of increased Co2.
It's important to mention that no one is truly certain about global warming. It's not like the sabotage attacks of 9/11, which is clear-cut, and presentable in a court of law. This is an issue to be sorted out by honest professionals.. which is why gibronies like you and I can only really get so far, trying to figure it out.
I know of no global warming skeptics who doubt that our planet is very troubled. Oceans, rivers, and streams are poisoned. So is the air. Species are dying, new cancers are cropping up all the time, less and less of the planet remains unmolested and mowed down by profiteers.. the only point that many honest scientists have a burning desire to debate is that of specifically whether or not our activity can be conclusively linked to temperature increases.
Regardless of where you stand, we should all be in agreement that something with such serious implications as "carbon credits" or climate change legislation, should not be primarily in the hands of a reptile like Al Gore. He's a treasonous parasite. He stands to make a killing if his "carbon credit" scheme pushes through.. but i digress.
I'm curious.. what do you think about the fact that much of the global warming raw data is not made available to skeptics who intend to scrutinize it? Commonly, global warming skeptics are refused this data, and told by Establishment scientists that they probably work for an oil company, and to get lost. First of all, no skeptics have ever been exposed as being on oil company payrolls, but even if they were, so what? How can it be truly scientific if the RAW DATA, the very source of studies and calculations, is not shared with professionals on BOTH sides? Also, much of the information presented by Al Gore is based on studies not properly peer-reviewed.
There may be confusion when it comes to the issue of global warming, but there's no confusion whatsoever over what IS and IS NOT good and legitimate scientific practices. These hacked emails are just more evidence that an honest scientific debate is NOT TAKING PLACE HERE.
Another reason why the "you may work for an oil company" argument is bullshit.. is the example of the tobacco industry. They employed scientists left and right, but eventually good science won, and now everyone knows that cigarettes are quite bad. So if the proponents of anthropogenic climate change are so confidently certain of their findings, they should not only offer every and anyone the opportunity to prove them wrong, but indeed CHERISH it, since it's through this exact type of criticism and refinement that scientific progress is made.
The Hutch: It sounds to me like you're attacking the process than the findings themselves. Which I can't and will not argue with. Any attempt by anyone, regardless of intention, to make good science better will be applauded by me.
However, most of the time, the statements you make are headlined by a disbelief in climate change which I don't think is a valid position based on the good science we do have.
As for people not turning over their data, well, I can't answer for everyone, but I have met more than a few climatologists (working for AAAR [http://aaar.org/ -- no, I didn't design their page, I Just publish updates on it] on occasion, in particular, grants me the opportunity) I know there's a lot of fear in the community. Fear of their data being stolen or misinterpreted. The measures they make us go through to make their presentation slides undownloadable... (which, mind you, is absurd and incredibly frustrating. When I show them how to take a screenshot, their heads explode).
But every year there are these presentations when the data does come out. I think it's more about completeness more than anything.
But I like the tabacco industry analogy. I may bring that up next time I have a chance to haves a conversation with a AAAR person.
Sorry if this is all over the place. Just trying to get a few tenuous points made before leaving for Thanksgiving stuff. Which I'm now going to do. Later!
The Gibroney Hunter:
Fact is, we know we are producing more CO2 than ever. This much is certain. And we know that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. These two facts together, paired with a great deal of observed and measured evidence from all over the world leads to a very obvious and ultimate conclusion about Global Warming.
No doubt, you'd point to more than a few outliers that exist. The oft-debated "cooling "stats, for example. And these facts need further exploring. It is certainly possible that all we know about global warming could turn out to be wrong. But considering all that we DO know, we can say, at the moment, that that is highly improbable. It would be very irresponsible not to act accordingly considering the danger involved in Global Warming being a real phenomenon.
There are no 100% knowns in science. Everything is a best guess. Even gravitation is called into question by any physicist worth his salt. We can only gather the best possible evidence and act according to what seems most likely at the moment. The testing and modeling and data gathering continues, and science refines and revises.
I sincerely hope everyone's wrong about Global Warming, but a handful of corrupt scientists does not make that so.
The Gibroney Hunter: I have no doubt that much good science is done everyday around the world. My intention isn't to attack science as an institution. Quite to the contrary, it's my love and respect for true science that motivates me to try to expose the criminal monied interests that have infiltrated, and now threaten to completely and irrevocably pervert and destroy science.
You're adamant about describing this e-mail situation as a group of rogue scientists who somehow got it into their heads to try to hide evidence of global temperature declines.. as if they weren't instructed by the individuals and groups who oversee their research to do just that.
When a scientist is given funding for specific research, he/she is not permitted very much deviation from the specific task that has been chartered. Sadly, the days of research and inquiry truly being in the hands of the scientist have long since passed us. The point I'm trying to make is that I find it extremely difficult to believe that these individuals attempted to fudge the data of their own volition. That's kind of like believing that the troops at Abu Ghraib decided amongst themselves to begin torturing people, and weren't specifically instructed to do just that. The scientific mind, like just about everything else in our world, is treated by the elite like just another resource to be harnessed and misused for their purposes.
While it's true that we as a species are producing more Co2 than ever before, studies have also shown that the overall levels of Co2 in our atmosphere have actually been much higher during certain periods of geological and human history.
Another point of debate is the issue of causation, regarding Co2. Many credible scientists question which comes first.. temperature increase or Co2 increase. In other words, there's disagreement over whether our Co2 emissions are significantly increasing temperature, or vice versa.. natural climate change is triggering a planetary response of increased Co2.
It's important to mention that no one is truly certain about global warming. It's not like the sabotage attacks of 9/11, which is clear-cut, and presentable in a court of law. This is an issue to be sorted out by honest professionals.. which is why gibronies like you and I can only really get so far, trying to figure it out.
I know of no global warming skeptics who doubt that our planet is very troubled. Oceans, rivers, and streams are poisoned. So is the air. Species are dying, new cancers are cropping up all the time, less and less of the planet remains unmolested and mowed down by profiteers.. the only point that many honest scientists have a burning desire to debate is that of specifically whether or not our activity can be conclusively linked to temperature increases.
Regardless of where you stand, we should all be in agreement that something with such serious implications as "carbon credits" or climate change legislation, should not be primarily in the hands of a reptile like Al Gore. He's a treasonous parasite. He stands to make a killing if his "carbon credit" scheme pushes through.. but i digress.
I'm curious.. what do you think about the fact that much of the global warming raw data is not made available to skeptics who intend to scrutinize it? Commonly, global warming skeptics are refused this data, and told by Establishment scientists that they probably work for an oil company, and to get lost. First of all, no skeptics have ever been exposed as being on oil company payrolls, but even if they were, so what? How can it be truly scientific if the RAW DATA, the very source of studies and calculations, is not shared with professionals on BOTH sides? Also, much of the information presented by Al Gore is based on studies not properly peer-reviewed.
There may be confusion when it comes to the issue of global warming, but there's no confusion whatsoever over what IS and IS NOT good and legitimate scientific practices. These hacked emails are just more evidence that an honest scientific debate is NOT TAKING PLACE HERE.
Another reason why the "you may work for an oil company" argument is bullshit.. is the example of the tobacco industry. They employed scientists left and right, but eventually good science won, and now everyone knows that cigarettes are quite bad. So if the proponents of anthropogenic climate change are so confidently certain of their findings, they should not only offer every and anyone the opportunity to prove them wrong, but indeed CHERISH it, since it's through this exact type of criticism and refinement that scientific progress is made.
The Hutch: It sounds to me like you're attacking the process than the findings themselves. Which I can't and will not argue with. Any attempt by anyone, regardless of intention, to make good science better will be applauded by me.
However, most of the time, the statements you make are headlined by a disbelief in climate change which I don't think is a valid position based on the good science we do have.
As for people not turning over their data, well, I can't answer for everyone, but I have met more than a few climatologists (working for AAAR [http://aaar.org/ -- no, I didn't design their page, I Just publish updates on it] on occasion, in particular, grants me the opportunity) I know there's a lot of fear in the community. Fear of their data being stolen or misinterpreted. The measures they make us go through to make their presentation slides undownloadable... (which, mind you, is absurd and incredibly frustrating. When I show them how to take a screenshot, their heads explode).
But every year there are these presentations when the data does come out. I think it's more about completeness more than anything.
But I like the tabacco industry analogy. I may bring that up next time I have a chance to haves a conversation with a AAAR person.
Sorry if this is all over the place. Just trying to get a few tenuous points made before leaving for Thanksgiving stuff. Which I'm now going to do. Later!
The Gibroney Hunter:
Monday, November 23, 2009
Common Sense - What Really Happened On September 11th? (part 2)
1. Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex was not hit by an airplane, yet it collapsed at all but exactly free-fall speed. This seems to run counter to ALL PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE of structure fires, and the behavior of steel structures while aflame. Never before or since this event has a steel framed building collapsed into itself at nearly free-fall speed, from fire and only fire. And that, of course, is the official story. Observe the footage of building 7's collapse. Hopefully you're already familiar, as anyone even remotely concerned with what happens in their country should be. Then compare that footage to stock footage of building demolitions. The images will be virtually indistinguishable. There is a tell-tale buckling of the roof (which begins collapse before the rest of the building) toward the center, which is exactly what one would expect during a demolition of a building.
Another very instructive comparison to make is between the footage of building 7 and other high rise buildings that have caught fire. One of the liberty towers in Philadelphia, for example, burned for over 12 hours, if I remember correctly.. officials on the scene described it as probably the worst high rise building fire in American history. The building is lit up like a torch, bright as the sun. The images of this event couldn't be any more different from building 7 on sept. 11. The fire in building 7 is emitting very dark smoke, which indicates an OXYGEN STARVED fire, rather than the thinner type smoke emitted from hotter, oxygen-fed fires. There are other skyscraper fires to compare this event to. There was one in Spain in 2005. Same story. Much bigger, brighter fire, and no collapse. And definitely no collapse at free fall speed, something all but impossible to accomplish unless a building's core support apparatus has been neutralized.
Either NYC has employed the most mediocre of engineers and architects.. or the official explanation of this event, as a fire-caused collapse is simply incorrect. There's much more to bring up regarding building 7, but I'll move on to another point for now.
2. THE TESTIMONY OF FORMER C.I.A AGENT SYBEL EDMONDS. Recently, this brave woman broke a federal gag order by announcing to the press that the agency she was a member of had direct contact with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden all the way up to the very day of September 11th. This is a startling revelation, as there is already a bucketful of evidence linking American intelligence to Al Qaeda, which in Arabic, means "The Base," and is in literal reference to a computer database the military kept in the '80's, of middle-eastern mercenaries willing to do the C.I.A's bidding. Combine this unsettling fact with the fact that Osama Bin Laden was visited by American intelligence officials in a Saudi Arabian hospital just months before the attacks, where he was receiving dialisis treatment, and also the fact that other whistle-blowers have revealed having Bin Laden in the crosshairs, and being ordered not to take the shot.. and the possibility that Al Qaeda is really a patsy organization, under the wing of the C.I.A, becomes more than mere idle speculation.
3. A common response to the obvious discrepancies between the official explanation, and the video footage of all 3 buildings collapsing in a manner consistent with demolition, and inconsistent with fire, is: "Well, there's really no point in going over this, since we'll never know exactly how they fell, until another two planes fly into another two towers.. so let's just forget about it."
It's important to patiently remind people that the one and only reason we are unable to ascertain the exact cause of all 3 collapses is because the federal government, only days after the attack, arranged for the steel debris to be shipped off to China to be melted down and used to make various slave labor products. Obviously excavation should have begun as soon as was possible, but shipping the debris, which would have contained AN ABUNDANCE of forensic and ballistic evidence, to a foreign country just days after the attacks, constitutes tampering with evidence in a federal crime scene, a very serious offense.
4. At least six of the alleged suicide hijackers have come out publicly, declaring that they are alive and not involved in any terrorism. Despite this amazing fact, these individuals remain on the F.B.I's list of the 19 hijackers, and no explanation or acknowledgment of this fact is offered.
5. In the 1950's, a B52 bomber flew HEAD FIRST, in foggy weather, into the empire state buildiing. There was some loss of life, obviously.. and it was quite a challenge for the firefighters at the time. But no big deal. No collapse. And that was a B52 bomber.
6. Samples of Nano-thermite, found at/near the crime scene, within the dust from the debris. Samples acquired and studied by Dr. Steven Jones, Physicist. Nano-thermite is significant, because it's an industrial explosive, commonly used in the demolition industry. It's presence within the debris is extremely difficult to explain, from the standpoint of the official story, since there is really no conceivable explanation for this particular substance to have been present naturally.
7. The Director of the 9/11 Commission, the federal government's excuse for an investigation, is an individual named Philip Zelikow. The problem with Philip Zelikow is that he co-authored a book with Condoleeza Rice, and has close ties and friendships with several members of the Bush administration. This is just one example of the multitude of conflicts of interest within the 9/11 Commission and it's final report.
8. NASA thermographic pictures from MONTHS after the attack show significant amounts of MOLTEN METAL still pooled beneath the rubble. The temperatures of this molten steel far exceed the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel. And that's jet fuel at its MAXIMUM. Forget about jet fuel after months of smoldering, there's no way these temperatures would be at the level necessary to maintain a pool of melted steel. Do you know what is consistent with lingering pools of molten steel, though? EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF THE MILITARY GRADE INDUSTRIAL EXPLOSIVE, NANO-THERMITE, AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED.
9, The Project For A New American Century (PNAC). This is a document published by a Neoconservative thinktank in 2000, within which the neocons complain about how their agenda for securing American dominance during the upcoming century isn't progressing quickly enough for them, and that a "NEW PEARL HARBOR" as they put it, is necessary, if the American people are going to be sufficiently galvanized into future wars for empire. About one year later, they got the "new pearl harbor" they were looking for.
Please rigorously fact-check any of this that sounds far fetched or made up.
I believe that exposing the crime of 9/11 is key to putting the brakes on this entire nightmare that has been thrust upon us since then, first by the Neocons, during Bush's eight years, and now, it's become obvious, also by Obama's fake liberal front, and his Wall Street handlers.
It's very difficult to stir the American public into becoming proactive. Very few things have been able to do that. But once it's done it's one of the most insurmountable forces the globe's ever seen. The overwhelming public outcry over Vietnam springs to mind as a powerful example of this. Another is the progress made with workers' rights in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
I believe this type of awakening and empowerment is in order once again. And a true realization of the motives and culprits behind 9/11 is precisely the remedy to the sociological disorder that has plagued our nation since that horrible day.
Another very instructive comparison to make is between the footage of building 7 and other high rise buildings that have caught fire. One of the liberty towers in Philadelphia, for example, burned for over 12 hours, if I remember correctly.. officials on the scene described it as probably the worst high rise building fire in American history. The building is lit up like a torch, bright as the sun. The images of this event couldn't be any more different from building 7 on sept. 11. The fire in building 7 is emitting very dark smoke, which indicates an OXYGEN STARVED fire, rather than the thinner type smoke emitted from hotter, oxygen-fed fires. There are other skyscraper fires to compare this event to. There was one in Spain in 2005. Same story. Much bigger, brighter fire, and no collapse. And definitely no collapse at free fall speed, something all but impossible to accomplish unless a building's core support apparatus has been neutralized.
Either NYC has employed the most mediocre of engineers and architects.. or the official explanation of this event, as a fire-caused collapse is simply incorrect. There's much more to bring up regarding building 7, but I'll move on to another point for now.
2. THE TESTIMONY OF FORMER C.I.A AGENT SYBEL EDMONDS. Recently, this brave woman broke a federal gag order by announcing to the press that the agency she was a member of had direct contact with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden all the way up to the very day of September 11th. This is a startling revelation, as there is already a bucketful of evidence linking American intelligence to Al Qaeda, which in Arabic, means "The Base," and is in literal reference to a computer database the military kept in the '80's, of middle-eastern mercenaries willing to do the C.I.A's bidding. Combine this unsettling fact with the fact that Osama Bin Laden was visited by American intelligence officials in a Saudi Arabian hospital just months before the attacks, where he was receiving dialisis treatment, and also the fact that other whistle-blowers have revealed having Bin Laden in the crosshairs, and being ordered not to take the shot.. and the possibility that Al Qaeda is really a patsy organization, under the wing of the C.I.A, becomes more than mere idle speculation.
3. A common response to the obvious discrepancies between the official explanation, and the video footage of all 3 buildings collapsing in a manner consistent with demolition, and inconsistent with fire, is: "Well, there's really no point in going over this, since we'll never know exactly how they fell, until another two planes fly into another two towers.. so let's just forget about it."
It's important to patiently remind people that the one and only reason we are unable to ascertain the exact cause of all 3 collapses is because the federal government, only days after the attack, arranged for the steel debris to be shipped off to China to be melted down and used to make various slave labor products. Obviously excavation should have begun as soon as was possible, but shipping the debris, which would have contained AN ABUNDANCE of forensic and ballistic evidence, to a foreign country just days after the attacks, constitutes tampering with evidence in a federal crime scene, a very serious offense.
4. At least six of the alleged suicide hijackers have come out publicly, declaring that they are alive and not involved in any terrorism. Despite this amazing fact, these individuals remain on the F.B.I's list of the 19 hijackers, and no explanation or acknowledgment of this fact is offered.
5. In the 1950's, a B52 bomber flew HEAD FIRST, in foggy weather, into the empire state buildiing. There was some loss of life, obviously.. and it was quite a challenge for the firefighters at the time. But no big deal. No collapse. And that was a B52 bomber.
6. Samples of Nano-thermite, found at/near the crime scene, within the dust from the debris. Samples acquired and studied by Dr. Steven Jones, Physicist. Nano-thermite is significant, because it's an industrial explosive, commonly used in the demolition industry. It's presence within the debris is extremely difficult to explain, from the standpoint of the official story, since there is really no conceivable explanation for this particular substance to have been present naturally.
7. The Director of the 9/11 Commission, the federal government's excuse for an investigation, is an individual named Philip Zelikow. The problem with Philip Zelikow is that he co-authored a book with Condoleeza Rice, and has close ties and friendships with several members of the Bush administration. This is just one example of the multitude of conflicts of interest within the 9/11 Commission and it's final report.
8. NASA thermographic pictures from MONTHS after the attack show significant amounts of MOLTEN METAL still pooled beneath the rubble. The temperatures of this molten steel far exceed the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel. And that's jet fuel at its MAXIMUM. Forget about jet fuel after months of smoldering, there's no way these temperatures would be at the level necessary to maintain a pool of melted steel. Do you know what is consistent with lingering pools of molten steel, though? EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF THE MILITARY GRADE INDUSTRIAL EXPLOSIVE, NANO-THERMITE, AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED.
9, The Project For A New American Century (PNAC). This is a document published by a Neoconservative thinktank in 2000, within which the neocons complain about how their agenda for securing American dominance during the upcoming century isn't progressing quickly enough for them, and that a "NEW PEARL HARBOR" as they put it, is necessary, if the American people are going to be sufficiently galvanized into future wars for empire. About one year later, they got the "new pearl harbor" they were looking for.
Please rigorously fact-check any of this that sounds far fetched or made up.
I believe that exposing the crime of 9/11 is key to putting the brakes on this entire nightmare that has been thrust upon us since then, first by the Neocons, during Bush's eight years, and now, it's become obvious, also by Obama's fake liberal front, and his Wall Street handlers.
It's very difficult to stir the American public into becoming proactive. Very few things have been able to do that. But once it's done it's one of the most insurmountable forces the globe's ever seen. The overwhelming public outcry over Vietnam springs to mind as a powerful example of this. Another is the progress made with workers' rights in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
I believe this type of awakening and empowerment is in order once again. And a true realization of the motives and culprits behind 9/11 is precisely the remedy to the sociological disorder that has plagued our nation since that horrible day.
HIgh Fructose Corn Syrup: Toxic, or just pointless and extremely unhealthy?
Some people will try to dismiss the creepiness of this ad by saying that us "crazies" would be making just as big a deal if the makers of HFCS didn't respond to their product's negative reputation. But that misses the point, as the suspicion arises from the type of response offered by the makers of HFCS, not merely the fact that they did respond. In other words, the fact that they chose to use advertising propaganda, rather than an information-rich print ad, or something of that nature, is somewhat disconcerting. I mean, really.. there's barely 10 words spoken in this commercial. It's difficult to see how it could be described as anything but straight propaganda.
And then there's the cheap mind game aspect of it.. how the individual with concerns regarding HFCS is portrayed as a bumbling boob who can't say word 1 when asked what the big deal is. Again, more indication that the makers of this ad are interested not in an open dialogue about their product taking place, but rather, in making people with concerns seem stupid and out of step, socially. This ad is a cheap piece o' bullshit and can only add to people's fears and suspicions of HFCS.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Calling Shenanigans on the Professional Class Propagandists, Once Again
Get a load o' this Gibronasaurus
Yeah I stopped taking this guy seriously as soon as he tried to connect Maher's skepticism of the pharmaceutical industry and the CDC's standards and practices, with "9/11 conspiracy mongering", simply by declaring it so. He draws no comparisons. He gives no fact-based examples. He simply name-drops '9/11 conspiracy theories' and then name-drops vaccine skepticism and then lazily lets his hopefully braindead audience make the unfair connection, without any critical inquiry. Rather than playing politics by dragging up the name of a political movement that may have a certain stigma for the average moron, this dude could have presented a legitimate SCIENTIFIC, not POLITICAL, critique. You'd think that would've been in order, since.. y'know.. he's a scientist, n' all.
Equating the honest and legitimate concerns of parents across this nation to a politically stigmatized movement without providing any support for that claim is just intellectually dishonest.
Reminding us of the basic theory behind vaccinations is a laughable response to skepticism and concern over a fast-tracked vaccine that has undergone utterly inadequate testing. The issue isn't whether or not there is any basis to the concept of vaccinations (there most assuredly is) but rather whether this scientific breakthrough has been politically and economically hijacked by people who, shall we say, haven't taken the hypocratic oath.
"Your brilliant line about how we know that the Bush administration did not orchestrate 9/11 (“because it worked”)"
His description of this line from Bill Maher as "brilliant" says a whole lot about him. Interpreting the "inside job" theory of 9/11 as some ridiculously unrealistic assertion that bush the nitwit is singlehandedly responsible for the attacks, reveals a mind-blowing niavete towards how intelligence organizations such as the C.I.A, MI6, and Moussad operate throughout our world. If anything, the presidency of such a dolt as Bush Jr. clearly illustrates COMPETENCY AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL.. for surely only a society expertly manipulated and controlled, and pervasively propagandized, could tolerate an 8 year reign from such a stuttering "clown on the world stage," to use one of Maher's more memorable lines.
Yeah I stopped taking this guy seriously as soon as he tried to connect Maher's skepticism of the pharmaceutical industry and the CDC's standards and practices, with "9/11 conspiracy mongering", simply by declaring it so. He draws no comparisons. He gives no fact-based examples. He simply name-drops '9/11 conspiracy theories' and then name-drops vaccine skepticism and then lazily lets his hopefully braindead audience make the unfair connection, without any critical inquiry. Rather than playing politics by dragging up the name of a political movement that may have a certain stigma for the average moron, this dude could have presented a legitimate SCIENTIFIC, not POLITICAL, critique. You'd think that would've been in order, since.. y'know.. he's a scientist, n' all.
Equating the honest and legitimate concerns of parents across this nation to a politically stigmatized movement without providing any support for that claim is just intellectually dishonest.
Reminding us of the basic theory behind vaccinations is a laughable response to skepticism and concern over a fast-tracked vaccine that has undergone utterly inadequate testing. The issue isn't whether or not there is any basis to the concept of vaccinations (there most assuredly is) but rather whether this scientific breakthrough has been politically and economically hijacked by people who, shall we say, haven't taken the hypocratic oath.
"Your brilliant line about how we know that the Bush administration did not orchestrate 9/11 (“because it worked”)"
His description of this line from Bill Maher as "brilliant" says a whole lot about him. Interpreting the "inside job" theory of 9/11 as some ridiculously unrealistic assertion that bush the nitwit is singlehandedly responsible for the attacks, reveals a mind-blowing niavete towards how intelligence organizations such as the C.I.A, MI6, and Moussad operate throughout our world. If anything, the presidency of such a dolt as Bush Jr. clearly illustrates COMPETENCY AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL.. for surely only a society expertly manipulated and controlled, and pervasively propagandized, could tolerate an 8 year reign from such a stuttering "clown on the world stage," to use one of Maher's more memorable lines.
Monday, November 16, 2009
2012 And The Mainstream Media
The mainstream eunuchs, NPR especially, have really been laying on the adolescent condescension and non sequiturs on the topic of 2012 this week. Here's a couple of points about how their approach to the question was both factually inaccurate and dismissive.
The first problem is the media's seemingly unstoppable urge to falsely compare the Y2K thing with 2012. Generally, the message the Mainstream Media is trying to forcefeed you is this: "Remember that Y2K thing? Well, that didn't amount to anything. So if you think 2012 may amount to anything, you must be foolish like those Y2K people." Y2K was a fad that had nothing to do with the "end of the world," or anything of the sort, so therefore the 2012 question, since it deals with some of the same themes, should be tossed into the wastebasket next to "Y2K" as just another silly fad gobbled up by us gullible westerners, in our neverending and fruitless search for fulfillment.
Sounds like a good argument over the airwaves, especially if you find the right kind of soothing effeminate NPR voice to convey it. The only problem here is that it's one of the more ludicrous arguments you could make, as Y2K was simply unheard of until about 10 months before the year 2000, and the significance of 2012 has been noted by extremely diverse civilizations throughout the last FIVE THOUSAND YEARS of human history, not to mention the fact that the cosmic cycles referred to by the Mayans and others are entirely real, and not disputed by any astronomers, in the west or otherwise.
The debate is not over whether 2012 is real or not, but over the significance of it, and whether or not it will directly influence our societies and collective unconscious. To compare this to a late '90's fad that was relatively easy to remedy, is either quite stupid, or simply dishonest.
My second point is kind of a reiteration of the first.. Another idea that these liars were adamant about was that people got really excited about the Y2K thing, and when that didn't work out, all the "crazies" were desperate to find the next armageddon fad, so they all seized upon 2012. As previously stated, the idea that 2012 is merely a product of fad-seekers is beyond retarded.
The first problem is the media's seemingly unstoppable urge to falsely compare the Y2K thing with 2012. Generally, the message the Mainstream Media is trying to forcefeed you is this: "Remember that Y2K thing? Well, that didn't amount to anything. So if you think 2012 may amount to anything, you must be foolish like those Y2K people." Y2K was a fad that had nothing to do with the "end of the world," or anything of the sort, so therefore the 2012 question, since it deals with some of the same themes, should be tossed into the wastebasket next to "Y2K" as just another silly fad gobbled up by us gullible westerners, in our neverending and fruitless search for fulfillment.
Sounds like a good argument over the airwaves, especially if you find the right kind of soothing effeminate NPR voice to convey it. The only problem here is that it's one of the more ludicrous arguments you could make, as Y2K was simply unheard of until about 10 months before the year 2000, and the significance of 2012 has been noted by extremely diverse civilizations throughout the last FIVE THOUSAND YEARS of human history, not to mention the fact that the cosmic cycles referred to by the Mayans and others are entirely real, and not disputed by any astronomers, in the west or otherwise.
The debate is not over whether 2012 is real or not, but over the significance of it, and whether or not it will directly influence our societies and collective unconscious. To compare this to a late '90's fad that was relatively easy to remedy, is either quite stupid, or simply dishonest.
My second point is kind of a reiteration of the first.. Another idea that these liars were adamant about was that people got really excited about the Y2K thing, and when that didn't work out, all the "crazies" were desperate to find the next armageddon fad, so they all seized upon 2012. As previously stated, the idea that 2012 is merely a product of fad-seekers is beyond retarded.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Alex Jones VS Snowcat VS The Gibroney Hunter
Brought to you by The Gibroney Hunter. Music by Snowcat. Words by Alex Jones. Images from the Internet.
Friday, October 30, 2009
The Gibroney Hunter Vs. The Hutch, Battle 2
The Gibroney Hunter: Virtually all vaccine safety research has been conducted by the vaccine producers themselves. The FDA does not conduct its own independent studies on this issue. Therefore, the manufacturers of the vaccines themselves are the sole source of information. Also, double-blind studies, which are essential to any good science, have never been conducted. Watch the documentary "vaccine nation." It should be on youtube. The mainstream scientific community is just another corrupt and toxic institution.
The Hutch: Another corrupt and toxic institution? really? I don't feel very corrupt or toxic. I don't think any of my scientist friends are corrupt or toxic. Mostly I think everyone I've met in either community are primarily concerned with discovering things and helping people.
Regardless of how invalid you think the research is giving vaccines the clear, there is absolutely NO good research that damns them. You're operating purely on speculation. There is, however, a great deal of research on the new outbreaks and deaths of old, curable diseases caused by communities of parents opting out of vaccines. Autism isn't a life sentence. Polio is.
Lastly, there have been double-blind studies on just about every vaccine out there. I don't know where you get your info, but it seems far less reliable than the so-called corrupt and toxic medical and scientific communities.
The Gibroney Hunter: I disagree that proper double blind studies were conducted. The studies conducted by vaccine makers were pervasively flawed and incomplete. And even if they weren't, it doesn't change the fact that the makers themselves were the ones testing. And you know as well as I do that good science cannot be biased in such a way.
Interesting you should mention Polio. If you observe the line graphs on Polio statistics in the months and years leading up to the vaccination, you may be as surprised as I was to learn that the death rate and diagnosis rates had been steadily DECLINING during this time. Quite contrary to most people's basic assumptions, there is actually a huge jump in the numbers immediately after vaccinations, then the natural steady decline continues until Polio ceases to be an epidemic. This is a very telling fact because it seems to support the assertion that the Polio vaccine was ineffective at best, and completely poisonous at worst, and also that the Polio virus, like so many other viruses throughout human history, was working itself out naturally.
A couple points regarding your claim of a lack of evidence supporting skepticism of vaccines. Look up Guillain-Barre syndrome, if you're not already familiar. It's actually a disease caused by tainted flu vaccines in the 1970's. For an entire year, the Establishment denied any connection between mounting deaths and the vaccinations, but they finally had to admit that yes, they had been poisoning people. There's much more to be said on this, but my second point is one I believe I've basically made before, in facebook comments. It's that the lack of well-funded research contradicting vaccine makers should come as a surprise to no one, since the makers of vaccines are part of a Eugenicist agenda that owns and operates mainstream science. They censor science just like they censor the news. There is a long list of honest professionals who were blacklisted and never funded again for research, after coming out publicly against things like fluoridation of our water supply, aspartame, vaccinations, and so on.
The Hutch: " It's that the lack of well-funded research contradicting vaccine makers should come as a surprise to no one, since the makers of vaccines are part of a Eugenicist agenda that owns and operates mainstream science."
DUDE. Come ON. Really?
Why is it that conspiracy theorists are so skeptical of damn near everything, but always so sure of the crackpot theories they come up with?
The Gibroney Hunter: "DUDE. Come ON. Really?"
What an articulate and well formulated response.
You are to scientific debate what Lil John is to hip hop.
The Hutch: It ceases to be a scientific debate when you bring up global conspiracies. It's like trying to discuss biology and someone chimes in "well what about the unicorn!?" I can't prove there are no unicorns. I'm just have to common sense to assume that they're fairly improbable.
Again, I don't understand why you can be so skeptical of so many things, yet so accepting of these crackpot theories you keep coming up with.
The Gibroney Hunter: But you can state a comprehensive case as to why it seems highly improbably that unicorns exist. In fact, this should be rather easy to do from a scientific perspective. And this is precisely what you haven't done. Sadly, much of what you're saying pretty much boils down to "you're crazy" Which may or may not be true.. but as an intellectually sound rebuttal? Just doesn't cut it.
"It ceases to be a scientific debate when you bring up global conspiracies."
Why? Is the subject of global conspiracies somehow beyond the scope of science? I'm assuming your answer would be 'no' so what exactly is it that leads you to reject this idea on it's face.
Fun Fact: BOTH predominant views of the events of 9/11 are in fact conspiracy theories. Some believe the richest people in the world conspired to ensure the next century would be one firmly in their control, and some believe that a rag-tag group of muslims CONSPIRED to simultaneously hijack four airliners, permeate NORAD, the most technologically advanced air-defense system in the solar system, crash those planes into 2 buildings and make 3 of them fall down.
Regarding my skepticism, and seeming lack of it in certain areas.. I disagree. I'm skeptical of every and any thing that crosses my path. The difference is that instead of suckling from the withering teat of NPR or Scientific American, I've actually begun using my own skepticism and applying it independently. And y'know what? Alot of the stuff that alot of people are convinced is immutable fact? Turns out to be shit, rather than shinola. I did not choose to become a 'conspiracy theorist.' My loyalty to the facts and the truth has led me to a place that (not very surprisingly) is viciously opposed by the massive hordes of lemmings known as the average American citizen.
The Hutch: Another corrupt and toxic institution? really? I don't feel very corrupt or toxic. I don't think any of my scientist friends are corrupt or toxic. Mostly I think everyone I've met in either community are primarily concerned with discovering things and helping people.
Regardless of how invalid you think the research is giving vaccines the clear, there is absolutely NO good research that damns them. You're operating purely on speculation. There is, however, a great deal of research on the new outbreaks and deaths of old, curable diseases caused by communities of parents opting out of vaccines. Autism isn't a life sentence. Polio is.
Lastly, there have been double-blind studies on just about every vaccine out there. I don't know where you get your info, but it seems far less reliable than the so-called corrupt and toxic medical and scientific communities.
The Gibroney Hunter: I disagree that proper double blind studies were conducted. The studies conducted by vaccine makers were pervasively flawed and incomplete. And even if they weren't, it doesn't change the fact that the makers themselves were the ones testing. And you know as well as I do that good science cannot be biased in such a way.
Interesting you should mention Polio. If you observe the line graphs on Polio statistics in the months and years leading up to the vaccination, you may be as surprised as I was to learn that the death rate and diagnosis rates had been steadily DECLINING during this time. Quite contrary to most people's basic assumptions, there is actually a huge jump in the numbers immediately after vaccinations, then the natural steady decline continues until Polio ceases to be an epidemic. This is a very telling fact because it seems to support the assertion that the Polio vaccine was ineffective at best, and completely poisonous at worst, and also that the Polio virus, like so many other viruses throughout human history, was working itself out naturally.
A couple points regarding your claim of a lack of evidence supporting skepticism of vaccines. Look up Guillain-Barre syndrome, if you're not already familiar. It's actually a disease caused by tainted flu vaccines in the 1970's. For an entire year, the Establishment denied any connection between mounting deaths and the vaccinations, but they finally had to admit that yes, they had been poisoning people. There's much more to be said on this, but my second point is one I believe I've basically made before, in facebook comments. It's that the lack of well-funded research contradicting vaccine makers should come as a surprise to no one, since the makers of vaccines are part of a Eugenicist agenda that owns and operates mainstream science. They censor science just like they censor the news. There is a long list of honest professionals who were blacklisted and never funded again for research, after coming out publicly against things like fluoridation of our water supply, aspartame, vaccinations, and so on.
The Hutch: " It's that the lack of well-funded research contradicting vaccine makers should come as a surprise to no one, since the makers of vaccines are part of a Eugenicist agenda that owns and operates mainstream science."
DUDE. Come ON. Really?
Why is it that conspiracy theorists are so skeptical of damn near everything, but always so sure of the crackpot theories they come up with?
The Gibroney Hunter: "DUDE. Come ON. Really?"
What an articulate and well formulated response.
You are to scientific debate what Lil John is to hip hop.
The Hutch: It ceases to be a scientific debate when you bring up global conspiracies. It's like trying to discuss biology and someone chimes in "well what about the unicorn!?" I can't prove there are no unicorns. I'm just have to common sense to assume that they're fairly improbable.
Again, I don't understand why you can be so skeptical of so many things, yet so accepting of these crackpot theories you keep coming up with.
The Gibroney Hunter: But you can state a comprehensive case as to why it seems highly improbably that unicorns exist. In fact, this should be rather easy to do from a scientific perspective. And this is precisely what you haven't done. Sadly, much of what you're saying pretty much boils down to "you're crazy" Which may or may not be true.. but as an intellectually sound rebuttal? Just doesn't cut it.
"It ceases to be a scientific debate when you bring up global conspiracies."
Why? Is the subject of global conspiracies somehow beyond the scope of science? I'm assuming your answer would be 'no' so what exactly is it that leads you to reject this idea on it's face.
Fun Fact: BOTH predominant views of the events of 9/11 are in fact conspiracy theories. Some believe the richest people in the world conspired to ensure the next century would be one firmly in their control, and some believe that a rag-tag group of muslims CONSPIRED to simultaneously hijack four airliners, permeate NORAD, the most technologically advanced air-defense system in the solar system, crash those planes into 2 buildings and make 3 of them fall down.
Regarding my skepticism, and seeming lack of it in certain areas.. I disagree. I'm skeptical of every and any thing that crosses my path. The difference is that instead of suckling from the withering teat of NPR or Scientific American, I've actually begun using my own skepticism and applying it independently. And y'know what? Alot of the stuff that alot of people are convinced is immutable fact? Turns out to be shit, rather than shinola. I did not choose to become a 'conspiracy theorist.' My loyalty to the facts and the truth has led me to a place that (not very surprisingly) is viciously opposed by the massive hordes of lemmings known as the average American citizen.
Monday, October 26, 2009
My Silence Cannot Be Bought
"I've chosen to go to court, rather than accept a payoff from the 9/11 victims compansation fund. Instead I want to know what went so wrong with our intelligence and security systems that a band of religious fanatics was able to turn four U.S passenger jets into an enemy force, attack our cities, and kill 3,000 civilians with terrifying ease. I want to know why two 110 story skyscrapers collapsed in less than two hours, and why escape and rescue options were so limited.
"I am suing because unlike other investigative avenues, including congressional hearings and the 9/11 commision, my lawsuit requires all testimony be given under oath, and fully uses powers to compel evidence. The victim's fund was not created in a spirit of compassion. Rather, it was a tacit acknowledgment by congress that it tampered with our civil justice system in an unprecedented way. Lawmakers capped the liability of the airlines at the behest of lobbyists who descended on Washington while the September 11th fires still smoldered. And this liability cap protects not just the airlines but also World Trade Center builders, safety engineers, and other defendants. The caps on liability have consequences for those who want to sue to shed light on the mistakes of 9/11. It means the playing field is tilted steeply in favor of those who need to be held accountable.
"With the financial consequences, other than insurance proceeds removed, there is no incentive for those whose negligence contributed to the death toll to acknowledge their failings, or implement reforms. They can afford to deny culpability and play a waiting game. By suing, I forfeited the 1.8 million dollar average award for a death claim I could have collected under the fund. Nor do I have any illusions about winning money in my suit. What I do know is I owe it to my husband, who's death, I believe, could have been avoided, to see that all of those responsible are held accountable. If we don't get answers to what went wrong, there will be a next time. And instead of 3,000 dead it will be 10,000. What will congress do then?
"So I say to congress, big business, and everyone who conspired to divert attention from government and private sector failures: My husband's life was priceless. And I will not let his death be meaningless. My silence cannot be bought." - Beverly Eckert, 9/11 widow and activist. She herself died in the crash of flight 3407, seven days after meeting with president Barack Obama.
"I am suing because unlike other investigative avenues, including congressional hearings and the 9/11 commision, my lawsuit requires all testimony be given under oath, and fully uses powers to compel evidence. The victim's fund was not created in a spirit of compassion. Rather, it was a tacit acknowledgment by congress that it tampered with our civil justice system in an unprecedented way. Lawmakers capped the liability of the airlines at the behest of lobbyists who descended on Washington while the September 11th fires still smoldered. And this liability cap protects not just the airlines but also World Trade Center builders, safety engineers, and other defendants. The caps on liability have consequences for those who want to sue to shed light on the mistakes of 9/11. It means the playing field is tilted steeply in favor of those who need to be held accountable.
"With the financial consequences, other than insurance proceeds removed, there is no incentive for those whose negligence contributed to the death toll to acknowledge their failings, or implement reforms. They can afford to deny culpability and play a waiting game. By suing, I forfeited the 1.8 million dollar average award for a death claim I could have collected under the fund. Nor do I have any illusions about winning money in my suit. What I do know is I owe it to my husband, who's death, I believe, could have been avoided, to see that all of those responsible are held accountable. If we don't get answers to what went wrong, there will be a next time. And instead of 3,000 dead it will be 10,000. What will congress do then?
"So I say to congress, big business, and everyone who conspired to divert attention from government and private sector failures: My husband's life was priceless. And I will not let his death be meaningless. My silence cannot be bought." - Beverly Eckert, 9/11 widow and activist. She herself died in the crash of flight 3407, seven days after meeting with president Barack Obama.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
A Gibroney Hunter Salute To: The Original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle movie
One of the crowning achievements of Hollywood, hands down. This is by no means a complete review or summary of the film (for that, I'd recommend the Angry Video Game Nerd, who reviews the film in depth in his youtube films), just a few comments.
For a children's film it achieves the perfect balance of harsh reality and fantasy. New York is portrayed as the grimy crime-toilet that it is. Everyone's poor, and everyone's job and life sucks. Just like real life. Except crazy shit happens sometimes, like having to battle the Foot Clan. Just like real life. (crazy shit happening, not the Foot Clan) April O'Neil tries her best to expose this hidden crime syndicate, but her Establishment shill of a boss is afraid to touch it and eventually fires her for her insistence on exposing the truth.
This film captures the popular culture of the late eighties/early nineties perfectly. The Foot Clan's indoctrination of the youth is a reflection of the gang and urban violence problem which was exploding exponentially at the time. We are shown a world in which evil runs rampant and one of the world's only sources of light and goodness are forced to live underground, lest they be exposed and labeled as 'freaks'. One of the best movies ever.
For a children's film it achieves the perfect balance of harsh reality and fantasy. New York is portrayed as the grimy crime-toilet that it is. Everyone's poor, and everyone's job and life sucks. Just like real life. Except crazy shit happens sometimes, like having to battle the Foot Clan. Just like real life. (crazy shit happening, not the Foot Clan) April O'Neil tries her best to expose this hidden crime syndicate, but her Establishment shill of a boss is afraid to touch it and eventually fires her for her insistence on exposing the truth.
This film captures the popular culture of the late eighties/early nineties perfectly. The Foot Clan's indoctrination of the youth is a reflection of the gang and urban violence problem which was exploding exponentially at the time. We are shown a world in which evil runs rampant and one of the world's only sources of light and goodness are forced to live underground, lest they be exposed and labeled as 'freaks'. One of the best movies ever.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
The Gibroney Hunter Vs. The Hutch
The Hutch: Art _is_ culture. His cure is the disease he's railing against.
McKenna has his head so far up his ass, so enamored with his struggle against society, that he barely understands how the rest of the world lives and thinks; like an angsty teenager railing against the 9-5 world when he's never worked a day in his life. He's a perfect example of how psychedelics can ruin person -- a hippie Dr. Jeckle permanently stuck as a wacked-out Mr. Hyde. And this is coming from someone who very much likes psychedelics.
How and why anyone would elevate the words of a man who equates science -- the pursuit knowledge through experimentation and research -- as some sort of "paternalistic metaphor ... extrapolated into toys for healthy children" is beyond me. He's quite clearly detached from any reality we exist in and he discredits whatever good ideas he happens to stumble upon simply by having them.
The Gibroney Hunter: Most of this statement is antagonistic and devoid of any actual content, but I'll try to respond to the little that is response-worthy. To start, it should be obvious that art is not culture. To conclude simply that "art is culture" is like saying that food is culture, just because the two are closely related. The particular spices and recipes, ... yes of course that's culture, but the food itself? Clearly not. The same can be said of art. Art is shaped, amplified, hindered, destroyed, exalted, by culture, but to say that art is merely equitable to and wholly subservient to culture reveals a very limited perspective on what art is and what art means to the human species.
The next few comments are generalized attacks on Terrence Mckenna, which can only reasonably warrant a defensive response, so forgive me. But Terence Mckenna has numerous books under his belt, along with a decades-long history of lecturing and public speaking, not to mention having lived long periods of time among tribal peoples in Central and South America. Not exactly behavior easily associated with a "Mr. Hyde hippie" unwilling to work the "9-5" (which, by the way, is a way of life that is obviously deeply flawed and unrewarding for the overwhelming majority of its participants, and only to be defended by true conformists.)
The Hutch: I would say food is culture, as would even the most conservative reading of the definition and spirit of the word. And to clarify, I wasn't saying that all culture is art, but that art is, again by definition, a defining feature of culture. But art isn't the problem, it's the solution. To culture. Which encompasses art? Right. He's not even challenged and he doesn't explain. He simply offers his nonsensical solution to his nonsensical problem and people cheer and ask how they can aid in his nonsensical crusade. And I'm the conformist?
I'm not usually one to go to the ad hominem attack, but I make exceptions when I think the person holding the idea is insane. And I do think McKenna is insane, regardless if it was because of the psychedelics, the massive brain tumor that killed him, or pure genetics. But your right, perhaps I should simply focus on the idea he's presenting and leave it at that.
I mean... extropy? Come on!
The Gibroney Hunter: Food: Food is any substance, usually composed of carbohydrates, fats, proteins and water, that can be eaten or drunk by an animal, including humans, for nutrition or pleasure. This is the most conservative reading of the definition and spirit of the word 'food' that i could find. There is no mention of culture. Simply because something is articulated through culture does not mean that it is culture. This is like saying that because culture plays a huge role in the way we express the emotion of love, then the emotion of love is culture. Obviously false. Love is an inevitable component of human nature and culture is merely the mechanism through which it either flourishes or is hindered. Take away culture and human love does not disappear, it simply is stifled, as it is not as able to be freely articulated.
It's important to keep in mind that there is a longer speech, and a larger context than is available in the youtube clip [the popular "culture is not your friend" youtube clip floating around], and Terrence Mckenna offers art not as the sole and central solution to a sick culture, but merely as one way to solve the problem. Perhaps if asked, he would also have other suggestions. Remember, he's speaking at an art school, which should help explain his focus on art as a solution to some of the world's problems.
Your choice of words throughout your comments is perplexing. Crusade? Saying that art can change the world for the better is a 'crusade'? Also you seem quick to jump to conclusions and put words into Mckenna's mouth. For example, you describe him as 'railing against' culture. Saying that culture is not your friend is quite different from railing or crusading against it. I think the obvious point he was making is that sometimes we forget that our true selves are entirely separate from culture, and culture is attached to us, like computer software. All of culture is alot like religion, in the sense that the whole thing really only exists as a metaphorical pair of training wheels for the human species, while we come to grips with our newfound emotional, intellectual, and spiritual capabilities, evolved over the past few hundred thousand years.
You may or may not be a conformist. I'm simply pointing out that in my experience, anyone willing to use the "lazy hippie" argument usually is. It usually reflects a jealousy at the individual, who is brave, clever, resourceful or maybe just plain lucky enough to brake free from the monotonous, potential-squandering grind of the "9-5" Which no one wants to take part in. They may be able to throw enough trinkets and baubles at you to make you say "this ain't so bad" But the sad reality is that culture is now overgrown, and being used by the ruling elite as a mechanism of control over the rest of us.
Calling someone crazy, and then citing that as reason enough not to engage in debate or discussion of their ideas, is one of the oldest and lamest tricks in the book. (see 9/11 truth movement, Prof. Steven Jones, Physicist)
McKenna has his head so far up his ass, so enamored with his struggle against society, that he barely understands how the rest of the world lives and thinks; like an angsty teenager railing against the 9-5 world when he's never worked a day in his life. He's a perfect example of how psychedelics can ruin person -- a hippie Dr. Jeckle permanently stuck as a wacked-out Mr. Hyde. And this is coming from someone who very much likes psychedelics.
How and why anyone would elevate the words of a man who equates science -- the pursuit knowledge through experimentation and research -- as some sort of "paternalistic metaphor ... extrapolated into toys for healthy children" is beyond me. He's quite clearly detached from any reality we exist in and he discredits whatever good ideas he happens to stumble upon simply by having them.
The Gibroney Hunter: Most of this statement is antagonistic and devoid of any actual content, but I'll try to respond to the little that is response-worthy. To start, it should be obvious that art is not culture. To conclude simply that "art is culture" is like saying that food is culture, just because the two are closely related. The particular spices and recipes, ... yes of course that's culture, but the food itself? Clearly not. The same can be said of art. Art is shaped, amplified, hindered, destroyed, exalted, by culture, but to say that art is merely equitable to and wholly subservient to culture reveals a very limited perspective on what art is and what art means to the human species.
The next few comments are generalized attacks on Terrence Mckenna, which can only reasonably warrant a defensive response, so forgive me. But Terence Mckenna has numerous books under his belt, along with a decades-long history of lecturing and public speaking, not to mention having lived long periods of time among tribal peoples in Central and South America. Not exactly behavior easily associated with a "Mr. Hyde hippie" unwilling to work the "9-5" (which, by the way, is a way of life that is obviously deeply flawed and unrewarding for the overwhelming majority of its participants, and only to be defended by true conformists.)
The Hutch: I would say food is culture, as would even the most conservative reading of the definition and spirit of the word. And to clarify, I wasn't saying that all culture is art, but that art is, again by definition, a defining feature of culture. But art isn't the problem, it's the solution. To culture. Which encompasses art? Right. He's not even challenged and he doesn't explain. He simply offers his nonsensical solution to his nonsensical problem and people cheer and ask how they can aid in his nonsensical crusade. And I'm the conformist?
I'm not usually one to go to the ad hominem attack, but I make exceptions when I think the person holding the idea is insane. And I do think McKenna is insane, regardless if it was because of the psychedelics, the massive brain tumor that killed him, or pure genetics. But your right, perhaps I should simply focus on the idea he's presenting and leave it at that.
I mean... extropy? Come on!
The Gibroney Hunter: Food: Food is any substance, usually composed of carbohydrates, fats, proteins and water, that can be eaten or drunk by an animal, including humans, for nutrition or pleasure. This is the most conservative reading of the definition and spirit of the word 'food' that i could find. There is no mention of culture. Simply because something is articulated through culture does not mean that it is culture. This is like saying that because culture plays a huge role in the way we express the emotion of love, then the emotion of love is culture. Obviously false. Love is an inevitable component of human nature and culture is merely the mechanism through which it either flourishes or is hindered. Take away culture and human love does not disappear, it simply is stifled, as it is not as able to be freely articulated.
It's important to keep in mind that there is a longer speech, and a larger context than is available in the youtube clip [the popular "culture is not your friend" youtube clip floating around], and Terrence Mckenna offers art not as the sole and central solution to a sick culture, but merely as one way to solve the problem. Perhaps if asked, he would also have other suggestions. Remember, he's speaking at an art school, which should help explain his focus on art as a solution to some of the world's problems.
Your choice of words throughout your comments is perplexing. Crusade? Saying that art can change the world for the better is a 'crusade'? Also you seem quick to jump to conclusions and put words into Mckenna's mouth. For example, you describe him as 'railing against' culture. Saying that culture is not your friend is quite different from railing or crusading against it. I think the obvious point he was making is that sometimes we forget that our true selves are entirely separate from culture, and culture is attached to us, like computer software. All of culture is alot like religion, in the sense that the whole thing really only exists as a metaphorical pair of training wheels for the human species, while we come to grips with our newfound emotional, intellectual, and spiritual capabilities, evolved over the past few hundred thousand years.
You may or may not be a conformist. I'm simply pointing out that in my experience, anyone willing to use the "lazy hippie" argument usually is. It usually reflects a jealousy at the individual, who is brave, clever, resourceful or maybe just plain lucky enough to brake free from the monotonous, potential-squandering grind of the "9-5" Which no one wants to take part in. They may be able to throw enough trinkets and baubles at you to make you say "this ain't so bad" But the sad reality is that culture is now overgrown, and being used by the ruling elite as a mechanism of control over the rest of us.
Calling someone crazy, and then citing that as reason enough not to engage in debate or discussion of their ideas, is one of the oldest and lamest tricks in the book. (see 9/11 truth movement, Prof. Steven Jones, Physicist)
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Anarchists: STAY HOME
Just another group of scenesters. Without your matching black uniforms and consistently earned reputation for vandalism and petty violence, the police would have a much harder time justifying their bloated crowd-control budgets to the public. You're all so caught up in the idea of yourselves that you've been far too slow to realize just how often and how deeply your 'organizations' have been infiltrated and commandeered by the very state that you march against. Simply put, if you get two anarchists in a room together, there's a pretty good chance one of them's a cop.
This is the point at which you abandon a movement. When it becomes overrun to the extent of accomplishing exactly the opposite of the goals for which it was chartered. When your meaningless little stageplay serves only the police state, as it is played out on their terms, you're provoked on their terms, and finally arrested on their terms. And in the end no one's mind is changed. No one's understanding is broadened. No real work has been done. I believe our founding fathers would be dismayed to see our freedom to assemble be reduced to street parades.
Yes, you should be able to assemble in Pittsburgh's streets and protest, and yes it's fucked that these monsters will actually employ sonic weaponry and gas grenades to prevent you from doing so. But here's the million dollar question. What's our best strategy of opposition to this tyrannical establishment? Street parades? Putting our cards on the table? Wearing our hearts on our sleeve? Or is it non-compliance, plain and simple? Non-compliance coupled with persistent efforts to disseminate the information that the mainstream media has hidden from the people. Now, non-compliance can take many forms, like eating fresh, local and organic foods, like they don't want you to.. never drinking their tap water, like they want you to.. never joining their military or police organizations, or mainstream political movements, never buying new vehicles, never buying new shoes or more clothing until truly necessary, canceling your cable, staying off prescription drugs, refusing vaccinations, voting 3rd party, etc..
Basically, there are only two things you can do. Improve your behavior, or try to encourage others to improve theirs. Cliche protests accomplish neither of these. Non-compliance and information dissemination accomplishes both. Turn on, tune in, drop out, Gibroneys. For real.
This is the point at which you abandon a movement. When it becomes overrun to the extent of accomplishing exactly the opposite of the goals for which it was chartered. When your meaningless little stageplay serves only the police state, as it is played out on their terms, you're provoked on their terms, and finally arrested on their terms. And in the end no one's mind is changed. No one's understanding is broadened. No real work has been done. I believe our founding fathers would be dismayed to see our freedom to assemble be reduced to street parades.
Yes, you should be able to assemble in Pittsburgh's streets and protest, and yes it's fucked that these monsters will actually employ sonic weaponry and gas grenades to prevent you from doing so. But here's the million dollar question. What's our best strategy of opposition to this tyrannical establishment? Street parades? Putting our cards on the table? Wearing our hearts on our sleeve? Or is it non-compliance, plain and simple? Non-compliance coupled with persistent efforts to disseminate the information that the mainstream media has hidden from the people. Now, non-compliance can take many forms, like eating fresh, local and organic foods, like they don't want you to.. never drinking their tap water, like they want you to.. never joining their military or police organizations, or mainstream political movements, never buying new vehicles, never buying new shoes or more clothing until truly necessary, canceling your cable, staying off prescription drugs, refusing vaccinations, voting 3rd party, etc..
Basically, there are only two things you can do. Improve your behavior, or try to encourage others to improve theirs. Cliche protests accomplish neither of these. Non-compliance and information dissemination accomplishes both. Turn on, tune in, drop out, Gibroneys. For real.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Smokin' Gibroneys Outa Their Holes
I found this Gibroney's video to be snarky and adolescent in its tone, and not terribly helpful. What do you think?
I'd like to discuss so called "no planers" with you. I'd like to know what has convinced you that they are creators of disinformation. I've watched September Clues and several films like it, and find some of the evidence to be very compelling indeed. While I see no reason not to believe the towers were hit by aircraft, I think the many obvious discrepencies and violations of simple laws of physics contained in the film footage is very incriminating evidence, and certainly not outside of the establishment's capabilities.
I find it amusing that many within the 9/11 truth movement go on at great length about just how capable the government is of great conspiracy.. yet when the topic of video manipulation arises most 9/11 truthers declare it ridiculous without providing any clear reasons why. For example, the majority of the 9/11 truth movement agree with David Ray Griffin that the cell phone calls from high altitude were faked. He even goes on about the corporation that patented the technology in his books, yet for some reason we're to believe that no discussion of a comparable VIDEO manipulation of the terrorist attack is necessary, because the idea's just so obviously ridiculous.
I can understand why many of the 'leaders' of 9/11 truth would steer clear of this topic. Namely, because it would risk alienating the movement from the general public, who are far too stupid to grasp such things as video manipulation of news footage. Again, I'm on the fence as to whether or not the projectiles that hit the buildings were authentic American Airlines flights, but i find the generally belligerent tone of the 'mainstream' of 9/11 truth toward 'no planers' to be very counterproductive. I'm interested in hearing any specific criticisms of no plane theory that you may have. Thanks for reading.
I'd like to discuss so called "no planers" with you. I'd like to know what has convinced you that they are creators of disinformation. I've watched September Clues and several films like it, and find some of the evidence to be very compelling indeed. While I see no reason not to believe the towers were hit by aircraft, I think the many obvious discrepencies and violations of simple laws of physics contained in the film footage is very incriminating evidence, and certainly not outside of the establishment's capabilities.
I find it amusing that many within the 9/11 truth movement go on at great length about just how capable the government is of great conspiracy.. yet when the topic of video manipulation arises most 9/11 truthers declare it ridiculous without providing any clear reasons why. For example, the majority of the 9/11 truth movement agree with David Ray Griffin that the cell phone calls from high altitude were faked. He even goes on about the corporation that patented the technology in his books, yet for some reason we're to believe that no discussion of a comparable VIDEO manipulation of the terrorist attack is necessary, because the idea's just so obviously ridiculous.
I can understand why many of the 'leaders' of 9/11 truth would steer clear of this topic. Namely, because it would risk alienating the movement from the general public, who are far too stupid to grasp such things as video manipulation of news footage. Again, I'm on the fence as to whether or not the projectiles that hit the buildings were authentic American Airlines flights, but i find the generally belligerent tone of the 'mainstream' of 9/11 truth toward 'no planers' to be very counterproductive. I'm interested in hearing any specific criticisms of no plane theory that you may have. Thanks for reading.
Interesting Back and Forth
Gibroney: You are absolutely correct when you say that the collapse of WTC7 was probably the result of controlled demolition. The CIA, Department of Defense, and Secret Service (plus the IRS) all shared office space on the 25th floor. Some sites around the world which contain sensitive information are internally wired for remote demolition from the outset in order to 'plug leaks', so to speak. If the building had not been demolished, individuals with no security clearance would gain access to it in the aftermath.
The claim of lack of evidence pointing to Al-Qaeda is simply false, as is the theory of 'multiple bin Ladens' on video. Al-Qaeda was directly implicated in the 1993 WTC attacks and were known to have been planning to try again. It should be noted that at the trial of Ramzi Yousef, the structural deficiencies of the twin towers were used as evidence by the prosecution (though the 9/11 Commission omits these facts, see my recommendation below), plus bin Laden has admitted it himself in the videos you claim are fake, even though many individuals in the intelligence communities of the world are trained to identify these specific types of fakery. Such dissimilation would be obvious to all of the world's other agencies and governments; are they in on the conspiracy too?
Also, you claim that:
"If all of this evidence...is to be explained as merely part of an elaborate disinformation campaign, then that would seem to clash with the "gross incompetence" theory, since that very incompetence should logically be expected to result in the uncovering of this supposed disinformation."
Unfortunately, your conclusion is a non-sequitur. It does not follow that because a government is incompetent in one instance, that it can be RELIABLY expected to be incompetent in others. Having said this (and after doing a bit more reading) I must retract the statement I made in my previous message about the administration's mishandling of Iraq etc. being indicative of incompetence on 9/11. The pattern is interesting, but admittedly ultimately inconclusive. In addition, I am not the only one propagating the meme that "the theory IS the conspiracy". Noam Chomsky, for one, has said that it is not unlikely.
By the way, I think that your theory that Chomsky is self-censoring to protect his family is a pretty far stretch.
I am not claiming that disinformation (which needn't be elaborate) is the ONLY source of the 9/11 truth movement. Much earnest grassroots activism has sprung up, because it's obvious that the government ACTUALLY HAS something to hide. However, a tried and true method of thought control is restricting the scope of a debate, and encouraging vigorous discussion within that framework. And as any good liar knows, the best lies are the ones that contain as much truth as possible.
I should add that I don't pretend to be able to PROVE that there is an organized campaign for disinformation; it's just an extremely well-supported theory, given that powerful individuals in many sectors of government, including the FBI and CIA, have means, motive, and opportunity, three things they crucially DON'T have in the case of deliberate conspiracy; see my previous message for remarks about the utter impracticality of such plans versus the broad practicality of disinformation.
For more evidence for incompetence, including Al-Qaeda infiltration of the US military, I suggest the work of journalist Peter Lance, particularly his book "Triple Cross". He describes the ineptitude across the four most recent previous administrations as "the biggest intelligence failure since the Trojan horse."
The Gibroney Hunter: Your theory to explain Bldg 7 is very interesting. It's my first time hearing of it. Are you aware of what specific buildings are wired for this, or is that perhaps not public information? I'll look into this more deeply when I have enough time.
I acknowledge that my view of the OBL video evidence is only my opinion, since I'm in no position to prove or disprove that. There are, however, some serious problems, not only with the video but with the way in which it has been presented by our media. The C.I.A translation of the audio has been contradicted by a German team of translators who contend that OBL (or someone resembling him) simply acknowledges approval or pleasure regarding the attacks, but doesn't acknowledge responsibility. Also, the individual in the video is seen wearing a gold wristwatch, which is a clear violation of muslim norms, at least among fundamentalist jihadists. I mention this fact not because it relates to the identity of the man in the video, but because it's indicative of the overall phoniness of it. Again, there is no reason to state conclusively that the man in the "Smoking Gun" video is a double, but it is faulty to reject this idea a priori, as there is a long historical precedent for this, especially among leaders who are at high risk of assassination. Saddam Hussein was notorious for his impressive cast of body doubles.
I disagree that my statement is a non-sequiter. Although it may appear so on it's face, a deeper examination shows that rather than simply presenting one instance and then another unrelated one, we are, in fact, proposing the same scenario. I'm proposing that the federal government lied about the cause of the collapse of the WTC complex, and then engaged in a massive disinformation campaign in order to control and manipulate public opinion. You're also proposing that the federal gov. lied about the collapse (blg 7 being wired for demolition) and then engaged in disinformation regarding those collapses. Therefore we are both proposing the same thing (albeit with very different proposed motives). The fundamental difference, however, is that my view has an extensive body of evidence to support it, and yours, to my knowledge, doesn't have a comparable amount of supportive evidence. You mention means, motive, and opportunity, which are indeed an important part of any investigation. However, these three characteristics amount to pretty much nothing, without any evidence to go with them, especially when there are alternative explanations which do, in fact, incorporate a large amount of verifiable facts (like witness accounts of explosions throughout the buildings and basement, nano-thermite, etc..). Essentially, the question is not "can you prove the 'theory is the conspiracy' idea", but "can you even present a compelling fact-based argument for it?" The issue of fire insulation (or lack thereof), while certainly relevant, does not adequately explain how jet fuel, which burns at 1000 C at maximum, could possibly have compromised the steel (1,300 minimum melting temp) so extensively in such a short period of time.
I certainly agree with you that Al Qaeda did play an important role in the '93 and '01 attacks, however I think a much more important and telling aspect of the attacks is the C.I.A fingerprints left all over, which Chomsky mentions in the video. To be clear, when I speak of a lack of evidence linking Al Qaeda to the attacks, I'm referring to the funding, and much of the planning and execution stages of the attack, for which there is indeed a lack of evidence (at least by law enforcement standards), and not to the obvious evidence linking Osama Bin Laden and his 19 patsies to American intelligence.
I'm not sure I follow your statements about intelligence agencies around the world presumably being eager to expose one another's dirty laundry. Surely there is much that is common knowledge within certain intelligence circles, and just as surely, any outing of these secrets would result in an "intelligence war" sort of scenario. In other words, you seem to be assuming that people in glass houses would be eager to throw stones, but precisely the opposite is true, especially in the intelligence field, which is essentially built on secrets.
The short answer to "are they in on the conspiracy too?" is yes. This becomes clear when one considers that the same group of international bankers and wealthy elite control groups like MI6, the C.I.A, and Mossad, organizations which on their surface appear to be functioning entirely independent of one another. Obviously this isn't to say that everyone within these groups would have to have been aware of such involvement. Intelligence organizations are highly compartmentalized, and this, in my opinion, is adequate to theoretically explain how a surprisingly small group of criminals are able to govern them. Unflinchingly obeying and never questioning orders from above is precisely the behavior that individuals are rewarded for. The assertion that "the government can't keep a secret that big" is a common argument posed by people who do not accept that 9/11 was an inside job. One good historical example that counters this thinking is the Manhattan Project. For roughly a decade, 48,000 Americans were involved in it's undertaking, and not until it was confirmed that we had the bomb and the Germans didn't, did anyone at all start talking. Also, it's important to note that every year, the list of 9/11 whistleblowers grows, so perhaps we're in agreement after all, that the federal government indeed cannot keep a secret this big.
This is getting a bit wordy, so I'll conclude by noting my disagreement that Chomsky being threatened is a stretch. I suggest the film "The Insider" to shed light on how easy it is for very powerful people to level threats at people of normal means. The film is a true account of a tobacco corporation making a whisleblower's life miserable. Tobacco corporations are relatively low on the totem pole, so to speak. One can imagine how miserable the globalist elite are capable of making one's life. Again, no evidence. But I disagree that the idea in itself is a stretch from reality. In reality, perhaps a threat wouldn't even be necessary, considering how well-informed and intelligent Chomsky is.
Thanks for reading, god bless.
The claim of lack of evidence pointing to Al-Qaeda is simply false, as is the theory of 'multiple bin Ladens' on video. Al-Qaeda was directly implicated in the 1993 WTC attacks and were known to have been planning to try again. It should be noted that at the trial of Ramzi Yousef, the structural deficiencies of the twin towers were used as evidence by the prosecution (though the 9/11 Commission omits these facts, see my recommendation below), plus bin Laden has admitted it himself in the videos you claim are fake, even though many individuals in the intelligence communities of the world are trained to identify these specific types of fakery. Such dissimilation would be obvious to all of the world's other agencies and governments; are they in on the conspiracy too?
Also, you claim that:
"If all of this evidence...is to be explained as merely part of an elaborate disinformation campaign, then that would seem to clash with the "gross incompetence" theory, since that very incompetence should logically be expected to result in the uncovering of this supposed disinformation."
Unfortunately, your conclusion is a non-sequitur. It does not follow that because a government is incompetent in one instance, that it can be RELIABLY expected to be incompetent in others. Having said this (and after doing a bit more reading) I must retract the statement I made in my previous message about the administration's mishandling of Iraq etc. being indicative of incompetence on 9/11. The pattern is interesting, but admittedly ultimately inconclusive. In addition, I am not the only one propagating the meme that "the theory IS the conspiracy". Noam Chomsky, for one, has said that it is not unlikely.
By the way, I think that your theory that Chomsky is self-censoring to protect his family is a pretty far stretch.
I am not claiming that disinformation (which needn't be elaborate) is the ONLY source of the 9/11 truth movement. Much earnest grassroots activism has sprung up, because it's obvious that the government ACTUALLY HAS something to hide. However, a tried and true method of thought control is restricting the scope of a debate, and encouraging vigorous discussion within that framework. And as any good liar knows, the best lies are the ones that contain as much truth as possible.
I should add that I don't pretend to be able to PROVE that there is an organized campaign for disinformation; it's just an extremely well-supported theory, given that powerful individuals in many sectors of government, including the FBI and CIA, have means, motive, and opportunity, three things they crucially DON'T have in the case of deliberate conspiracy; see my previous message for remarks about the utter impracticality of such plans versus the broad practicality of disinformation.
For more evidence for incompetence, including Al-Qaeda infiltration of the US military, I suggest the work of journalist Peter Lance, particularly his book "Triple Cross". He describes the ineptitude across the four most recent previous administrations as "the biggest intelligence failure since the Trojan horse."
The Gibroney Hunter: Your theory to explain Bldg 7 is very interesting. It's my first time hearing of it. Are you aware of what specific buildings are wired for this, or is that perhaps not public information? I'll look into this more deeply when I have enough time.
I acknowledge that my view of the OBL video evidence is only my opinion, since I'm in no position to prove or disprove that. There are, however, some serious problems, not only with the video but with the way in which it has been presented by our media. The C.I.A translation of the audio has been contradicted by a German team of translators who contend that OBL (or someone resembling him) simply acknowledges approval or pleasure regarding the attacks, but doesn't acknowledge responsibility. Also, the individual in the video is seen wearing a gold wristwatch, which is a clear violation of muslim norms, at least among fundamentalist jihadists. I mention this fact not because it relates to the identity of the man in the video, but because it's indicative of the overall phoniness of it. Again, there is no reason to state conclusively that the man in the "Smoking Gun" video is a double, but it is faulty to reject this idea a priori, as there is a long historical precedent for this, especially among leaders who are at high risk of assassination. Saddam Hussein was notorious for his impressive cast of body doubles.
I disagree that my statement is a non-sequiter. Although it may appear so on it's face, a deeper examination shows that rather than simply presenting one instance and then another unrelated one, we are, in fact, proposing the same scenario. I'm proposing that the federal government lied about the cause of the collapse of the WTC complex, and then engaged in a massive disinformation campaign in order to control and manipulate public opinion. You're also proposing that the federal gov. lied about the collapse (blg 7 being wired for demolition) and then engaged in disinformation regarding those collapses. Therefore we are both proposing the same thing (albeit with very different proposed motives). The fundamental difference, however, is that my view has an extensive body of evidence to support it, and yours, to my knowledge, doesn't have a comparable amount of supportive evidence. You mention means, motive, and opportunity, which are indeed an important part of any investigation. However, these three characteristics amount to pretty much nothing, without any evidence to go with them, especially when there are alternative explanations which do, in fact, incorporate a large amount of verifiable facts (like witness accounts of explosions throughout the buildings and basement, nano-thermite, etc..). Essentially, the question is not "can you prove the 'theory is the conspiracy' idea", but "can you even present a compelling fact-based argument for it?" The issue of fire insulation (or lack thereof), while certainly relevant, does not adequately explain how jet fuel, which burns at 1000 C at maximum, could possibly have compromised the steel (1,300 minimum melting temp) so extensively in such a short period of time.
I certainly agree with you that Al Qaeda did play an important role in the '93 and '01 attacks, however I think a much more important and telling aspect of the attacks is the C.I.A fingerprints left all over, which Chomsky mentions in the video. To be clear, when I speak of a lack of evidence linking Al Qaeda to the attacks, I'm referring to the funding, and much of the planning and execution stages of the attack, for which there is indeed a lack of evidence (at least by law enforcement standards), and not to the obvious evidence linking Osama Bin Laden and his 19 patsies to American intelligence.
I'm not sure I follow your statements about intelligence agencies around the world presumably being eager to expose one another's dirty laundry. Surely there is much that is common knowledge within certain intelligence circles, and just as surely, any outing of these secrets would result in an "intelligence war" sort of scenario. In other words, you seem to be assuming that people in glass houses would be eager to throw stones, but precisely the opposite is true, especially in the intelligence field, which is essentially built on secrets.
The short answer to "are they in on the conspiracy too?" is yes. This becomes clear when one considers that the same group of international bankers and wealthy elite control groups like MI6, the C.I.A, and Mossad, organizations which on their surface appear to be functioning entirely independent of one another. Obviously this isn't to say that everyone within these groups would have to have been aware of such involvement. Intelligence organizations are highly compartmentalized, and this, in my opinion, is adequate to theoretically explain how a surprisingly small group of criminals are able to govern them. Unflinchingly obeying and never questioning orders from above is precisely the behavior that individuals are rewarded for. The assertion that "the government can't keep a secret that big" is a common argument posed by people who do not accept that 9/11 was an inside job. One good historical example that counters this thinking is the Manhattan Project. For roughly a decade, 48,000 Americans were involved in it's undertaking, and not until it was confirmed that we had the bomb and the Germans didn't, did anyone at all start talking. Also, it's important to note that every year, the list of 9/11 whistleblowers grows, so perhaps we're in agreement after all, that the federal government indeed cannot keep a secret this big.
This is getting a bit wordy, so I'll conclude by noting my disagreement that Chomsky being threatened is a stretch. I suggest the film "The Insider" to shed light on how easy it is for very powerful people to level threats at people of normal means. The film is a true account of a tobacco corporation making a whisleblower's life miserable. Tobacco corporations are relatively low on the totem pole, so to speak. One can imagine how miserable the globalist elite are capable of making one's life. Again, no evidence. But I disagree that the idea in itself is a stretch from reality. In reality, perhaps a threat wouldn't even be necessary, considering how well-informed and intelligent Chomsky is.
Thanks for reading, god bless.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Crushing Gibroneys Is My Business. And Business Is Good.
Fat guy talks alot about the need to present evidence, but other than simply accepting and parroting the government's official story, he fails utterly to present any evidence of his own. He doesn't seem to grasp the fact that both he and the guest are positing conspiracy theories, just different conspiracy theories. Because of this fact, it is unfair of him to demand evidence from the guest without equally demanding it of himself.
One can disprove the government's official story without posing an alternative theory at all. This is called ruling possibilities out, and it is a common practice of criminal investigators and law enforcement. Basically, Fatty is saying that unless one has a fully developed alternative explanation for events, one has no right at all to approach the government's explanation with skepticism. This is counterintuitive since obviously one would have to realize the discrepancies in the official account before even acknowledging a NEED to pose an alternative.
Monday, September 14, 2009
More Gibroney Huntin' (cont)
This dude not only accepts the "gross incompetence" fable, but takes it one step further, and asserts that 9/11 Truth is actually fomented and instigated by the establishment itself, in order to cover up incompetence and enforce a false notion of American omnipotence. And we're the "conspiracy theorists"?
Some Gibroney: Is there a cover-up involving 9/11? Most certainly, especially given all the evidence in the materials you've sent me. However, it is my opinion that most theories of this sort are cover stories deliberately propagated (if not created) by intelligence organs of the gov't to distract people from its periodic episodes of gross incompetence w/r/t security, exemplified by the JFK assassination and 9/11.
Some facts:
The CIA has brought radical Muslims into the US. The hijackers trained on US military bases. More military training exercises were scheduled for September 11, 2001 than usual. Hijackers were able to enter the airspace of, to say nothing of crashing a plane into, the headquarters of the most powerful military in human history and so on and so on...
We know that the US gov't has a long history of psychological operations against its own population; the UFO/alien myth for instance is propagated (probably with the collusion of Hollywood) to distract the public from the size and scope of the black military budget and the high-tech weaponry and vehicles it produces. The US gov't is also well known for its history of covert paramilitary action, but the vast majority of that is concentrated abroad, with a few exceptions (COINTELPRO being one).
As far as I can tell, there are two viable explanations that incorporate all of these facts:
1) A high-level conspiracy involving dozens, if not hundreds, of specially trained individuals and agents, none of whom are affected by the temptation to expose one of the greatest conspiracies in world history and thus become (inter)national heroes.
2) Gross incompetence (with probably some bad luck) on the part of the US intelligence/security apparatus, with a cover-up/conspiracy theory generated later to make sure the administration would not be viewed as bunglers, but as nigh-omnipotent masterminds.
The main reason we can reject explanation 1 is that any of the purported 'inside job' 9/11 schemes would have a very low chance of succeeding. Undertaking such a plan would be costly, elaborate, and difficult to keep under wraps because of the extremely high risk of detection and/or defection. If the aim of the 9/11 attacks was to drum up support for an aggressive foreign policy in general (and eventual war with Iraq in particular), a far easier plan would've been to engage in some of the things recommended by Operation Northwoods, particularly a bombing campaign. Stealing or fabricating seemingly Iraqi-made explosives is well within the powers of US intelligence, but even in that case, an eventual leak of their real source is very likely, given the amount of manpower and resources necessary for such an operation.
It is very useful to compare the events of 9/11 with those of the Kennedy assassination. They share many features: a devastating security breach, evidence for (probably unwitting) CIA involvement with the perpetrators (making the incidents a form of blowback), a deliberately avoidant and selectively informative gov't commission, and, I believe, manipulation of public paranoia in the form of deliberately and systematically withheld evidence (e.g. Kennedy's missing brain, the confiscated Pentagon security camera tapes). In both cases, the credibility of the US security apparatus is on the line. Fear is a crucial component of the power of these organizations; if they lose face they lose much of their ability to indimidate.
Machiavelli wrote that "it is better to be feared than loved", but being feared is also better than being thought a buffoon (and fessing up to criminal negligence). We need only look as far as the Bush administration's record in Afghanistan and Iraq to see how incompetent they really are when it comes to security, in both the short- and long-term. And as depicted in the video you sent me, before 9/11, high US gov't officials were either dismissive of critical intelligence (e.g. the memo infamously ignored by Condi Rice and others), or they never received it, which explains Bush & co.'s fetishistic obsession with more communication and integration among the US's various intelligence agencies. Though the CIA probably had contacts with bin Laden's organization, including several of the hijackers, it would be fallacious to then conclude that the CIA intended for those individuals to undertake terrorist acts against the United States; it seems evident to me that the authors of that video are taking Chomsky's words out of context.
The video does not address another crucial section of that particular Q&A of Chomsky's talk in Hungary, in which he discusses the nature of controlled experiments conducted in the best laboratories in the world under controlled conditions. A scientist routinely encounters strange patterns and coincidences, even apparent violations of the laws of nature under such conditions, but if (s)he approaches the experiment with scientific skepticism, (s)he will perform the experiment as many times as possible to make sure that all of the data is meaningful and there are no hidden variables. We don't have that luxury with the 9/11 attacks; they can only happen once. The precise reasons for (say) the structural collapse of the WTC complex can only be surmised, and only very sketchily modeled. There are so many variables in this case, it should come as no surprise that the conclusions of Steven Jones and others are only endorsed by a fraction of accredited architects and engineers.
In conclusion, it seems reasonable to me to surmise, based on the available evidence, that certain facts about the 9/11 attacks are indeed being downplayed, ignored, or denied by certain members of the American political establishment. But it's far more likely that they're all trying to cover their asses after carelessly letting a catastrophe unfold. It's important to maintain healthy skepticism w/r/t the actions of very powerful states, but just because they're hiding something, doesn't mean they're hiding what you (or me, or anyone else) THINKS they're hiding.
The Gibroney Hunter: Thanks for taking the time to respond, it's amazing how rare it is for people to be willing to seriously debate or discuss the matter, rather than resorting to arguing like children. I'll try to address some of your points.
The "gross incompetence" theory is commonly offered as a response to the abundance of incriminating evidence indicating federal involvement. I could find some merit in this if the case against the establishment was based solely on a few instances of counterintelligence. Unfortunately, however, much of the evidence is far too direct and damning to be accounted for by such a theory.
For example, the video evidence of building 7's collapse is in no way consistent with a collapse caused by fire. A photograph clearly showing smoke rising from the lower levels of the north tower, before either building was hit by aircraft. The fact that the federal government promised to have a large amount of evidence linking Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to the attacks. 8 years on, they have yet to reveal any of this evidence whatsoever. Which would seem counterintuitive, since the single best way to disprove us "conspiracy theorists" would be to simply provide us with the evidence that we were, after all, promised by the government shortly after the attacks. (The "smoking gun" video evidence, which in my opinion features an obvious body double with darker skin and higher cheekbones, is the sole article offered to the public)
If all of this evidence (which is by no means the bulk of it all) is to be explained as merely part of an elaborate disinformation campaign, then that would seem to clash with the "gross incompetence" theory, since that very incompetence should logically be expected to result in the uncovering of this supposed disinformation. It's important to keep in mind that there are numerous independent journalists, investigators, and truth seekers working daily to uncover any and all information regarding 9/11. As far as I know, no one has provided hard evidence of such a disinformation campaign (as opposed to the disinformation that is the official story, for which there is overwhelming evidence of it's existence)
I find it very difficult to believe that if, for example, Steven Jones' evidence of nano-thermite was falsified, no one would uncover this fact or at the very least uncover reasons to be suspicious of that fact. To summarize, the reason I don't give much credence to the theory that the 9/11 Truth movement is the result of disinformation, intended to serve as a smokescreen for incompetence, is because there's simply no evidence to support this claim. If you're aware of any, I'd be very interested to see it.
The main reason the cause of the structural collapse of the buildings can only be surmised is because the steel debris, which should have been treated as evidence in a massive crime scene, was sold off to China to be recycled. It's highly likely that a forensic study of that steel would have resulted in a conclusive analysis of the towers' collapse.
I believe the reason Steven Jones' work has been ignored by mainstream science is blacklisting, plain and simple. Assuming the establishment's story is true, it should be in their best interest to have his work peer-reviewed, in order to finally quell this controversy. Instead he's fired from his job and ignored by all major scientific journals. The sad truth is that the financiers of scientific and medical research have far too big a say in the direction of that research, and this generally explains why ideas such as Jones' are whitewashed. Also, a Danish scientist, along with 8 others, recently reached the same conclusions as Jones, and his findings have been gaining attention and traction since he presented them. Anyone even vaguely familiar with the history of science is aware that new ideas are not always welcomed with open arms, and often it's a gradual process of awareness.
Some Gibroney: Is there a cover-up involving 9/11? Most certainly, especially given all the evidence in the materials you've sent me. However, it is my opinion that most theories of this sort are cover stories deliberately propagated (if not created) by intelligence organs of the gov't to distract people from its periodic episodes of gross incompetence w/r/t security, exemplified by the JFK assassination and 9/11.
Some facts:
The CIA has brought radical Muslims into the US. The hijackers trained on US military bases. More military training exercises were scheduled for September 11, 2001 than usual. Hijackers were able to enter the airspace of, to say nothing of crashing a plane into, the headquarters of the most powerful military in human history and so on and so on...
We know that the US gov't has a long history of psychological operations against its own population; the UFO/alien myth for instance is propagated (probably with the collusion of Hollywood) to distract the public from the size and scope of the black military budget and the high-tech weaponry and vehicles it produces. The US gov't is also well known for its history of covert paramilitary action, but the vast majority of that is concentrated abroad, with a few exceptions (COINTELPRO being one).
As far as I can tell, there are two viable explanations that incorporate all of these facts:
1) A high-level conspiracy involving dozens, if not hundreds, of specially trained individuals and agents, none of whom are affected by the temptation to expose one of the greatest conspiracies in world history and thus become (inter)national heroes.
2) Gross incompetence (with probably some bad luck) on the part of the US intelligence/security apparatus, with a cover-up/conspiracy theory generated later to make sure the administration would not be viewed as bunglers, but as nigh-omnipotent masterminds.
The main reason we can reject explanation 1 is that any of the purported 'inside job' 9/11 schemes would have a very low chance of succeeding. Undertaking such a plan would be costly, elaborate, and difficult to keep under wraps because of the extremely high risk of detection and/or defection. If the aim of the 9/11 attacks was to drum up support for an aggressive foreign policy in general (and eventual war with Iraq in particular), a far easier plan would've been to engage in some of the things recommended by Operation Northwoods, particularly a bombing campaign. Stealing or fabricating seemingly Iraqi-made explosives is well within the powers of US intelligence, but even in that case, an eventual leak of their real source is very likely, given the amount of manpower and resources necessary for such an operation.
It is very useful to compare the events of 9/11 with those of the Kennedy assassination. They share many features: a devastating security breach, evidence for (probably unwitting) CIA involvement with the perpetrators (making the incidents a form of blowback), a deliberately avoidant and selectively informative gov't commission, and, I believe, manipulation of public paranoia in the form of deliberately and systematically withheld evidence (e.g. Kennedy's missing brain, the confiscated Pentagon security camera tapes). In both cases, the credibility of the US security apparatus is on the line. Fear is a crucial component of the power of these organizations; if they lose face they lose much of their ability to indimidate.
Machiavelli wrote that "it is better to be feared than loved", but being feared is also better than being thought a buffoon (and fessing up to criminal negligence). We need only look as far as the Bush administration's record in Afghanistan and Iraq to see how incompetent they really are when it comes to security, in both the short- and long-term. And as depicted in the video you sent me, before 9/11, high US gov't officials were either dismissive of critical intelligence (e.g. the memo infamously ignored by Condi Rice and others), or they never received it, which explains Bush & co.'s fetishistic obsession with more communication and integration among the US's various intelligence agencies. Though the CIA probably had contacts with bin Laden's organization, including several of the hijackers, it would be fallacious to then conclude that the CIA intended for those individuals to undertake terrorist acts against the United States; it seems evident to me that the authors of that video are taking Chomsky's words out of context.
The video does not address another crucial section of that particular Q&A of Chomsky's talk in Hungary, in which he discusses the nature of controlled experiments conducted in the best laboratories in the world under controlled conditions. A scientist routinely encounters strange patterns and coincidences, even apparent violations of the laws of nature under such conditions, but if (s)he approaches the experiment with scientific skepticism, (s)he will perform the experiment as many times as possible to make sure that all of the data is meaningful and there are no hidden variables. We don't have that luxury with the 9/11 attacks; they can only happen once. The precise reasons for (say) the structural collapse of the WTC complex can only be surmised, and only very sketchily modeled. There are so many variables in this case, it should come as no surprise that the conclusions of Steven Jones and others are only endorsed by a fraction of accredited architects and engineers.
In conclusion, it seems reasonable to me to surmise, based on the available evidence, that certain facts about the 9/11 attacks are indeed being downplayed, ignored, or denied by certain members of the American political establishment. But it's far more likely that they're all trying to cover their asses after carelessly letting a catastrophe unfold. It's important to maintain healthy skepticism w/r/t the actions of very powerful states, but just because they're hiding something, doesn't mean they're hiding what you (or me, or anyone else) THINKS they're hiding.
The Gibroney Hunter: Thanks for taking the time to respond, it's amazing how rare it is for people to be willing to seriously debate or discuss the matter, rather than resorting to arguing like children. I'll try to address some of your points.
The "gross incompetence" theory is commonly offered as a response to the abundance of incriminating evidence indicating federal involvement. I could find some merit in this if the case against the establishment was based solely on a few instances of counterintelligence. Unfortunately, however, much of the evidence is far too direct and damning to be accounted for by such a theory.
For example, the video evidence of building 7's collapse is in no way consistent with a collapse caused by fire. A photograph clearly showing smoke rising from the lower levels of the north tower, before either building was hit by aircraft. The fact that the federal government promised to have a large amount of evidence linking Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to the attacks. 8 years on, they have yet to reveal any of this evidence whatsoever. Which would seem counterintuitive, since the single best way to disprove us "conspiracy theorists" would be to simply provide us with the evidence that we were, after all, promised by the government shortly after the attacks. (The "smoking gun" video evidence, which in my opinion features an obvious body double with darker skin and higher cheekbones, is the sole article offered to the public)
If all of this evidence (which is by no means the bulk of it all) is to be explained as merely part of an elaborate disinformation campaign, then that would seem to clash with the "gross incompetence" theory, since that very incompetence should logically be expected to result in the uncovering of this supposed disinformation. It's important to keep in mind that there are numerous independent journalists, investigators, and truth seekers working daily to uncover any and all information regarding 9/11. As far as I know, no one has provided hard evidence of such a disinformation campaign (as opposed to the disinformation that is the official story, for which there is overwhelming evidence of it's existence)
I find it very difficult to believe that if, for example, Steven Jones' evidence of nano-thermite was falsified, no one would uncover this fact or at the very least uncover reasons to be suspicious of that fact. To summarize, the reason I don't give much credence to the theory that the 9/11 Truth movement is the result of disinformation, intended to serve as a smokescreen for incompetence, is because there's simply no evidence to support this claim. If you're aware of any, I'd be very interested to see it.
The main reason the cause of the structural collapse of the buildings can only be surmised is because the steel debris, which should have been treated as evidence in a massive crime scene, was sold off to China to be recycled. It's highly likely that a forensic study of that steel would have resulted in a conclusive analysis of the towers' collapse.
I believe the reason Steven Jones' work has been ignored by mainstream science is blacklisting, plain and simple. Assuming the establishment's story is true, it should be in their best interest to have his work peer-reviewed, in order to finally quell this controversy. Instead he's fired from his job and ignored by all major scientific journals. The sad truth is that the financiers of scientific and medical research have far too big a say in the direction of that research, and this generally explains why ideas such as Jones' are whitewashed. Also, a Danish scientist, along with 8 others, recently reached the same conclusions as Jones, and his findings have been gaining attention and traction since he presented them. Anyone even vaguely familiar with the history of science is aware that new ideas are not always welcomed with open arms, and often it's a gradual process of awareness.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
More Gibroney Huntin'
Some Gibroney: OK, so answer the point if you would, why, if the elite powers of the world have conspired so deeply, with the stakes incredible power, and the ante 4,000 lives that has been planned since at least the first WTC attack, why aren't we winning the shit out of this war? What, we'll kill our own citizens but won't find Bin Laden because of Pakistan's sovereignty? My friend, it is you who needs to pull their head out of the sand, this conjecture doesn't add up. Not to mention winning the war itself.
The Gibroney Hunter: We won't find Bin Laden because he's a CIA asset. If this sounds far fetched to you, I would suggest doing a google search for "Sibel Edmonds". She's a former FBI translator who recently broke a federal gag order by revealing that the federal intelligence community was in constant contact with OBL right up to the day of 9/11. While it's true that the American people are not winning the war, the globalist elite surely are winning in Iraq, since their goal was never really to 'spread democracy' or even to 'stabilze' the region, but quite the opposite actually.
Their goals, many experts agree, are multifaceted. Control of the worlds energy resources, obviously (you don't need to be a 'conspiracy theorist' to grasp that one), to further balkanize the muslim world, as it is the world's largest source of opposition to globalization and power consolidation and also to usher in an environment of stricter control and monitoring of the populace here at home. Dead soldiers is not their concern.
Some Other Gibroney: What evidence would you cite for the North American Union?
The Gibroney Hunter: While plans for the North American Union are considered "theoretical" by the establishment, the very fact that they even have theoretical plans to economically tether Canada, the U.S, and Mexico, should be worrisome to every advocate of national sovereignty and supporter of the U.S constitution. I would suggest reading about the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) which was founded in 2005. Also, Lou Dobbs occasionally makes mention of the plans for a NAU on his CNN show.
The Gibroney Hunter: We won't find Bin Laden because he's a CIA asset. If this sounds far fetched to you, I would suggest doing a google search for "Sibel Edmonds". She's a former FBI translator who recently broke a federal gag order by revealing that the federal intelligence community was in constant contact with OBL right up to the day of 9/11. While it's true that the American people are not winning the war, the globalist elite surely are winning in Iraq, since their goal was never really to 'spread democracy' or even to 'stabilze' the region, but quite the opposite actually.
Their goals, many experts agree, are multifaceted. Control of the worlds energy resources, obviously (you don't need to be a 'conspiracy theorist' to grasp that one), to further balkanize the muslim world, as it is the world's largest source of opposition to globalization and power consolidation and also to usher in an environment of stricter control and monitoring of the populace here at home. Dead soldiers is not their concern.
Some Other Gibroney: What evidence would you cite for the North American Union?
The Gibroney Hunter: While plans for the North American Union are considered "theoretical" by the establishment, the very fact that they even have theoretical plans to economically tether Canada, the U.S, and Mexico, should be worrisome to every advocate of national sovereignty and supporter of the U.S constitution. I would suggest reading about the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) which was founded in 2005. Also, Lou Dobbs occasionally makes mention of the plans for a NAU on his CNN show.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Another Gibroney Handled Swiftly
Here's a comment some gibroney left for this video, followed by my response.
Some Gibroney: while you are trying to figure out who did 9/11, or killed JFK, you're enduring another day of being nickled and dimmed by the Rich & Power and their stooges in government - and you aren't doing a thing about it, you're not even aware of it because you are distracted with nonsense.
The Gibroney Hunter: And while you're busy giving Chomsky 29.95 for each of his crappy books, nothing at all changes. You pathetic armchair liberals and intellectual masturbators have had fifty years of being a fixture of the establishment to make a difference. And what have you accomplished? Jack shit. Except to create the spineless liar that used to be Noam Chomsky that we see here.
It's amazing that people like you are so quick to point out their mistrust of the establishment, yet when you attempt to utilize that mistrust while considering the issue of 9/11, suddenly you're labeled a conspiracy theorist. Apparently the mainstream left has no problem distrusting the government regarding torture, WMDs, rationales for starting wars, prior knowledge of the attacks, and pretty much any area of the subject of 9/11 EXCEPT the possibility of it being an inside job. This is irrational behavior. When someone demonstrates their capacity to deceive you time and time again, the smart thing to do is take every thing they say with a grain of salt. INCLUDING THE OFFICIAL STORY OF 9/11.
Regardless of whether or not you believe it was an inside job, EVERYONE should be in agreement that a new and honest investigation is in order. After all, our nation spent more money trying to find out how many times Clinton got his dick sucked, than it did trying to determine who was responsible for the largest mass murder to take place on this continent in modern history.
Some Gibroney: while you are trying to figure out who did 9/11, or killed JFK, you're enduring another day of being nickled and dimmed by the Rich & Power and their stooges in government - and you aren't doing a thing about it, you're not even aware of it because you are distracted with nonsense.
The Gibroney Hunter: And while you're busy giving Chomsky 29.95 for each of his crappy books, nothing at all changes. You pathetic armchair liberals and intellectual masturbators have had fifty years of being a fixture of the establishment to make a difference. And what have you accomplished? Jack shit. Except to create the spineless liar that used to be Noam Chomsky that we see here.
It's amazing that people like you are so quick to point out their mistrust of the establishment, yet when you attempt to utilize that mistrust while considering the issue of 9/11, suddenly you're labeled a conspiracy theorist. Apparently the mainstream left has no problem distrusting the government regarding torture, WMDs, rationales for starting wars, prior knowledge of the attacks, and pretty much any area of the subject of 9/11 EXCEPT the possibility of it being an inside job. This is irrational behavior. When someone demonstrates their capacity to deceive you time and time again, the smart thing to do is take every thing they say with a grain of salt. INCLUDING THE OFFICIAL STORY OF 9/11.
Regardless of whether or not you believe it was an inside job, EVERYONE should be in agreement that a new and honest investigation is in order. After all, our nation spent more money trying to find out how many times Clinton got his dick sucked, than it did trying to determine who was responsible for the largest mass murder to take place on this continent in modern history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
But don't underestimate the significance of this corruption, evidenced by the immoral and in my opinion criminal activity, exposed in these emails. (i sent you the source code, check it out.) These emails reveal an attempt to unfairly manage and manipulate the facts and the overall debate over global warming. This doesn't seem to fit well with the image of rock-solid science, pushed in our faces by the global warming marketing machine.
The success of the theory of evolution didn't require people sitting around trying to fudge the numbers like sleazy accountants.
I'm definitely highly skeptical of the theory of anthropogenic global warming, which is a standpoint not only supported by volumes of evidence, but by the already destroyed reputation of the Establishment, and the elite globalists who own and operate it. In other words, they've committed so many frauds and crimes against the populations they dominate, that I find it entirely rational to maintain the standpoint of deep skepticism and, dare I say, a sober amount of paranoia, toward their agenda.
Anyway, yeah.. have a good thanksgiving.