Can we start a new "crisis actor" thread?

[JackRiddler]

Jack is conclusive (Ni … Introverted Intution) and values order and structure (Te) .. but doesn't really do feelings.

Bollocks. I'm doing anger.

What feeling has anyone here shown for the randomly chosen woman (or women) that Nordic chooses to defame as an accomplice to mass murder? Where is your feeling, your sensitivity, your understanding for others' perspective. It's precisely the lack of empathic understanding here that is so appalling, even more so when smothered in New Age touchy-feely wrapping.

There seems to be a whole faction here who think debates are resolved not through a search for truth but by corporate conflict resolution strategies that "give" something to everyone and fit people into pop-psychology categories. You are illustrating a homogenizing desire for artificial order in which no one is offended and every idea is equally bad.

Furthermore, I've always tested as ENFP. So there.

.

[Sounder]

Saurian Tail » Fri Jun 13, 2014 11:33 pm wrote:Jack is conclusive (Ni … Introverted Intution) and values order and structure (Te) .. but doesn't really do feelings.

Bollocks. I'm doing anger.

What feeling has anyone here shown for the randomly chosen woman (or women) that Nordic chooses to defame as an accomplice to mass murder? Where is your feeling, your sensitivity, your understanding for others' perspective. It's precisely the lack of empathic understanding here that is so appalling, even more so when smothered in New Age touchy-feely wrapping.

There seems to be a whole faction here who think debates are resolved not through a search for truth but by corporate conflict resolution strategies that "give" something to everyone and fit people into pop-psychology categories. You are illustrating a homogenizing desire for artificial order in which no one is offended and every idea is equally bad.

Furthermore, I've always tested as ENFP. So there.

Yeah Saurian Tail, gotta go with Jack on this. (Except for the second to last sentence, that is just more flabby character assassination innuendo.)

You make your case very clearly Jack, although the direction of your inquiry does not seem to show much interest in the level of scripting involved, if any, in the pseudo major events in the news.

I wonder if your request to stop with unjustified defamation's extends to someone like Danny Arroyo?

[JackRiddler]

You make your case very clearly Jack, although the direction of your inquiry does not seem to show much interest in the level of scripting involved, if any, in the pseudo major events in the news.

I wonder if your request to stop with unjustified defamation's extends to someone like Danny Arroyo?

1) I think the direction of my inquiry as expressed on RI shows great interest, shared with other members, in the level of scripting involved in pseudo (and non-pseudo) events in the news and politics. I would like to rescue to such inquiry from stubbornly un-rigorous thinking.

2) Who is Danny Arroyo? First time I've seen the name, seriously. What's he sposed to have done?

[Sounder]

Opps, my bad, I meant Carlos Arredondo

Sorry about that.

[JackRiddler]

Opps, my bad, I meant Carlos Arredondo

Okay, believe it or not, I'm bowing out here now because my point is made and things will get very ugly from here if I stick around.

[82_28]

Well, make it "ugly" Jack. I'm not egging you on, just say what's on your mind. I think there is a point to be made as far as the OP and that point was made in order to think about and discuss. This is nothing to fight over nor lose a member because he becomes too hot under the collar. I sincerely hope that Nordic comes back. And I don't blame you, Jack, if he doesn't. Just, bear in mind that this is what this forum is all about. Not everyone is going to agree all the time, but there are a large number of issues in which we do agree all the time.

Can I get a shout out for the current media representation of what is unfolding in Iraq? I think we should shake shit up and on Saturdays or something become a pro-war forum in order to throw them off our tail. Sarcastic, sardonic, Saturdays! The people here are not worth pissing off if we care about where we gather.

[barracuda]

Jack's doing god's work here, god's work, I say.

I think it's kinda ridiculous that on this website people who want to entertain or discuss certain conspiracy theories are aggressively opposed, rather than met as a friend or at least a fellow thinking human.

But there are a variety of "conspiracy theories" which the subject matter of this thread engenders, yes? And while they are not of necessity mutually exclusive, some aspects of the conjectures do stand in shades of opposition to others. Here are a few of the notions at work:

- Firstly, and the primary subject of the OP, there are (or may be) persons employed by the deep state to impersonate witnesses and/or victims of highly publicized violent criminal actions. This may be a possible "tell" of a false flag op, a mere lazy bit of lying by the complicit media, or some other unknown thing.

- There are, without question, companies which employ and rent out actors to pose as participants on either sides of drills and emergency enactments.

- There are, without question, groups of people pushing to complete absurdity the "crisis actor" meme in the wake of any and every highly publicized violent criminal action. What their motivations are, who they are, and who they work for is a valid matter of discussion.

- Then there is the question of whether or not it is really possible to identify individuals in these types of videos or photographs, especially without any type of methodology. To do so, is, in some opinions, dangerous, because it can lead to IRL repercussions. There is a moral issue here.

- There's the technology itself, that of facial recog processing. It is notoriously imperfect and prone to abuses by the surveillance state.

And more. As you can see, some of these conspiracies offer evidence against the likelihood of others, or reasons to distrust them entirely. But they're all part of the discussion**.

There's also this:

BTW, the Obama "dopplegonger" looks nothing like Obama, and Morgan Freeman does not look like Mandela. And Alex Jones is not Bill Hicks. Good grief.

You're missing the point. The use of decoys and doubles by prominent and vulnerable politicians is standard practice. To believe otherwise is simply naive, even if people like Ilham Anas constitute a naturally-occurring limited hangout. But what does this tell us about the OP? Firstly, I think, that there are enough people who look enough like other people to make the surreptitious employment of those people a relative commonplace.

people nobody here knows anything about routinely get accused of far worse. It's the nature of the niche.

That hardly strikes me as a recommendation, unless you want to adopt the type of moral justifiers that encourage the mass imputation of guilt on nameless persons found by relentless scouring of found camera footage. Volunteering to become an instrumentality of the hive mind panopticon would seem to be against the grain of even the most ill-defined areas of research available to our disposal. It's not even research, per se. More like idle cop-chat about hapless persons randomly caught in their line of sight.

I wonder if your request to stop with unjustified defamation's extends to someone like Danny Arroyo Carlos Arredondo?

Arredondo has made himself a public figure, of sorts, and so becomes a different category within the context of these discussions. Nevertheless, most if not all examinations of Arredondo as a crisis actor during the Boston bombings are based entirely upon the type of commentary which proceeds from statements like, "Why didn't he drop his hat? No one would hold onto their hat during such a crisis, so he must be a plant. And also, Jeff Bauman - he was fake too. &c."


.
.
.
.

**As a side note, for future reference, and/or general guidelines: if you sit on your hands and then press upwards, that is your ass. If you take a shovel and dig a few spadefuls out of your yard, that is a hole in the ground. Even if you happen too disagree with this, there's really no harm in anyone holding or arguing it as a point of view, especially in the face of posters here who "just know" they're right and you're wrong, but can't seem to pull together any more solid footing for their reasoning than that.

[Asta]

In response to Barracuda, I, like Nordic, am also a photographer and a very skilled portrait painter. I have been looking at faces, photographing, and painting for 40 years. I did not miss any points. What I am trying to say is that most people, and yes I am painting here with a wide brush with a good bit of accuracy, but most people simply don't pay attention to the world they are in. They are not observant. And I am very aware that politicians, tyrants and celebs have doubles/look a-likes. The movie "Dave" was based on that very practice. A fictional story, but someday, it might become a reality.

I also never got the impression that Nordic was making the argument that the witnesses in the CNN clips were somehow accomplices to the crimes.

It would have been a lot more fun to have discussed that perhaps the people showing up at crime scenes and disasters who looked alike were a group of time travelers who enjoyed going back in time to witness train wrecks and plane crashes as a hobby. I think that was actually an episode on The Outer Limits or some other TV series, maybe a sic-fi story.

[Luther Blissett]

…I see no problem in discussing far-out ideas and theories as long as we can all agree that under no circumstances (except perhaps immediate bodily threat) is it ok to respond to a situation with violence. Americans, and the west in general, appear to be a long way from this sentiment and from my point of view this is the main attitude that needs to be addressed and changed. Attacking certain unpopular conspiracy theories is about as helpful as attacking this or that movie or video game because it is a "bad influence". Those movies or games are usually a bad influence because they illustrate our existing screwed-up attitudes towards the world, and we would rather not have those things shown to us.

I consider myself a pacifist and what you're saying is right and good, but through my involvement over the past couple years with Idle No More, social justice movements and solidarity fights, I've been shown that I don't have the right to impose my pacifism on others less privileged than I, especially where they are being genocided by people who look a lot more like me than them. Say for instance that the people in Pine Ridge, Brasilia, or Alberta want to take up armed resistance, I'd be a lot more likely to stand with them than against them. I suppose that each of these examples could be considered "immediate bodily threat," but I see it as bigger than that. The concept is possibly scalable given what is happening to Mexican children in Arizona or New Mexico or African Americans anywhere whenever one ounce of balance is tipped.

So I agree about America's institutionalized attitudes about violence needing to be adjusted and that violence from our lowest classes is viewed disdainfully by most of American culture. However, the adjustment should account for the oppressed.

[Zombie Glenn Beck]

…I see no problem in discussing far-out ideas and theories as long as we can all agree that under no circumstances (except perhaps immediate bodily threat) is it ok to respond to a situation with violence. Americans, and the west in general, appear to be a long way from this sentiment and from my point of view this is the main attitude that needs to be addressed and changed. Attacking certain unpopular conspiracy theories is about as helpful as attacking this or that movie or video game because it is a "bad influence". Those movies or games are usually a bad influence because they illustrate our existing screwed-up attitudes towards the world, and we would rather not have those things shown to us.

I consider myself a pacifist and what you're saying is right and good, but through my involvement over the past couple years with Idle No More, social justice movements and solidarity fights, I've been shown that I don't have the right to impose my pacifism on others less privileged than I, especially where they are being genocided by people who look a lot more like me than them. Say for instance that the people in Pine Ridge, Brasilia, or Alberta want to take up armed resistance, I'd be a lot more likely to stand with them than against them. I suppose that each of these examples could be considered "immediate bodily threat," but I see it as bigger than that. The concept is possibly scalable given what is happening to Mexican children in Arizona or New Mexico or African Americans anywhere whenever one ounce of balance is tipped.

So I agree about America's institutionalized attitudes about violence needing to be adjusted and that violence from our lowest classes is viewed disdainfully by most of American culture. However, the adjustment should account for the oppressed.

So you do have the right to impose your pacifism on people as privileged or more privileged than you?

[Zombie Glenn Beck]

Also MBTI is the horoscope for nerds.

[Saurian Tail]

JackRiddler said:

Bollocks. I'm doing anger.

<<snip>>

Furthermore, I've always tested as ENFP. So there.

Well, Te and Ni are the ENFP's primary oppositional functions and map perfectly to "anger". So that makes makes good sense.

For an ENFP, Oppositional Te demands conformance to a standard (personal as determined by Fi, presented as an objective standard by Te) … when conformance is is not received, oppositional Ni declares that the non-conformer doesn't get it, is dense, stupid or worse (or in this case in collusion, an agent, etc).

Nordic makes a contribution here in his own way and has exactly the same right to be here as the rest of us. He is a longstanding member of the RI "community" and doesn't deserve the treatment you have been giving him. I would certainly hate to see him run off.

I guess that's my two cents.

[Saurian Tail]

Also MBTI is the horoscope for nerds.

MBTI certainly is used that way by people in popular culture. But the cognitive function theory has roots that run surprisingly deep when you take the time to look. Likewise, astrology, if you go beyond the pop culture usage, also has a rather amazing amount to contribute to understanding human motivation and behavior. People have been trying to understand why we do what we do for a VERY long time.

RI seems like a well choreographed dance to me … round and around people go … action and reaction. It's all seems to proceed along a very orderly path. Am I the only one that sees it?

If we get rid of a Nordic or a Jack, don't people realize that the vacuum will be filled by another similar person? Isn't that the way it has always worked? Why not just make some sort of peace with the Nordic and the Jack that are already here?

[Saurian Tail]

Also MBTI is the horoscope for nerds.

I just realized this is a pretty cool sync.

While I was typing my previous post, I was thinking, "It seems like I can't mention MBTI without someone making fun of it". And of course, what I ended up typing was how everything seems to run along an orderly course … over and over again.

When I hit send, I realized that I was replying to "Zombie" Glenn Beck!

[Luther Blissett]

…I see no problem in discussing far-out ideas and theories as long as we can all agree that under no circumstances (except perhaps immediate bodily threat) is it ok to respond to a situation with violence. Americans, and the west in general, appear to be a long way from this sentiment and from my point of view this is the main attitude that needs to be addressed and changed. Attacking certain unpopular conspiracy theories is about as helpful as attacking this or that movie or video game because it is a "bad influence". Those movies or games are usually a bad influence because they illustrate our existing screwed-up attitudes towards the world, and we would rather not have those things shown to us.

I consider myself a pacifist and what you're saying is right and good, but through my involvement over the past couple years with Idle No More, social justice movements and solidarity fights, I've been shown that I don't have the right to impose my pacifism on others less privileged than I, especially where they are being genocided by people who look a lot more like me than them. Say for instance that the people in Pine Ridge, Brasilia, or Alberta want to take up armed resistance, I'd be a lot more likely to stand with them than against them. I suppose that each of these examples could be considered "immediate bodily threat," but I see it as bigger than that. The concept is possibly scalable given what is happening to Mexican children in Arizona or New Mexico or African Americans anywhere whenever one ounce of balance is tipped.

So I agree about America's institutionalized attitudes about violence needing to be adjusted and that violence from our lowest classes is viewed disdainfully by most of American culture. However, the adjustment should account for the oppressed.

So you do have the right to impose your pacifism on people as privileged or more privileged than you?

I don't have the right to impose anything on anyone but I know from experience that impressing my beliefs on those less privileged than I reads as / is a form of imposition and one of the less severe tools of oppression. I hold no power against those who are equal to or above me in terms of power so when I share my beliefs, that's all it is.