by Dreams End » Sun Sep 18, 2005 6:48 pm
I read the last Pitt link. sounds to me like a mainstream Democrat. I actually find myself unable to hang out with my local peace group because I just get red in the face trying to control myself when this sort of stuff comes up. In fact, the local listserv was actually being used for awhile to recruit people to Democratic events. I know I shouldn't be this way, but it's just tough when people are admiring trees while the forest burns around them. Or maybe I'm just an elitist snob.<br><br>Question is, how do you handle this when on your best behavior? If you start talking "limited hangout"...well, who does limited hangouts? CIA agents. My own experience would suggest that calling someone a CIA agent simply is not effective...it does nothing to persuade the people under the influence of that particular person. So it seems legit to challenge his views...but if your goal is to show some light to people who are faithful readers of him, I don't think that's the way to go.<br><br>In fact, it may not even be true. I imagine that 9/11 has some on the "left" trapped the way Schotz suggests even the Kennedy family itself was trapped after the JFK assassination. They WANT to make a difference but they also WANT to have access to power. And they also don't want all hell to break loose if the whole power structure, of which they are part (albeit as the "loyal opposition" with emphasis on "loyal"...and maybe real small font for "opposition") comes crumbling down. <br><br>And, of course, not only are these two factors not mutually exclusive...they are sometimes REALLY hard to differentiate...intentional disinfo as part of the grand plan vs. gatekeeping behavior to keep things from going too far, EVEN WITH SOME AWARENESS OF THE UNDERLYING REALITY. <br><br>While I don't go around calling them "agents", I have a lot less patience with the liberal gatekeepers, and have learned even more about the whole establishment since joining this forum. Who is sincere but being funded specifically because he doesn't question the "deep politics"? Who is somewhat reformist, but squelches debates because he finds that if things go too far, the whole structure gets smashed and sees that as a worse possibility than the status quo? Who is knowingly acting as a gatekeeper? Who is on the take from the CIA? (hundreds in the media, according to the agency itself). I just don't know. I think sometimes it is simply impossible to know for sure.<br><br>That's why I advocate an approach that challenges these gatekeepers without speculation as to their motivation while accepting just plain folks where they happen to be and working from there. If you start flinging accusations and calling names, especially to people who simply don't have the same background knowledge, it just creates defensiveness. <br><br>Now, the problem of course, with Pitt specifically is that you really CAN'T challenge him much on DU...I assume you'll find yourself banned. But maybe you can get away with it for awhile. Is there a chance that meaningful results would come from such efforts? I don't know. <br><br>As for the PO angle....again, I can't say. Personally...well, my opinion on PO is known. But an awful lot of good people accept this concept. Indeed, from my perspective, the whole reason it's being pushed is so that lots of people will believe it. Look at the debates on this board because of it. Though I feel my own intelligence has been questioned for being skeptical of Peak Oil, I think that people of high intelligence here and elsewhere have accepted it as fact. Some claim to have done enough scientific research to "prove it" in their minds...and I certainly do not represent myself as that well versed in petro-geological concepts.<br><br>So, while we'll ask any reading this who want to debate Peak Oil to go to old threads or start a new one, the question of why Pitt is pushing it, assuming as I do that it is not correct, really can't be answered. He could simply, genuinely believe that oil is about to run out and that this alone can explain much of what's going on in the world. And certainly, oil is a factor...whether it's to control the "last few drops" or to control as much of the world supply as possible for geostrategic, realpolitik sorts of reasons. And since we are all taught as schoolchildren that oil is made from a limited supply of decayed biomass...it all makes sense.<br><br>Like you, I do have other possible motives in mind. In fact, I just posted a question about someone who writes on Online Journal, which has become a very vocal Peak Oil outlet. No one answered that post, but I was curious because the writer "questioned" Peak Oil but really linked Dave McGowan with Lyndon Larouche in the mind of the reader and then linked to an abiotic oil site that had, as its first reference in the footnotes, a book about the lost land of Mu. Looked like intentional disinfo to me to discredit McGowan and the concept, but other things written by this guy Jerry Mazza seemed fine (after just glancing at titles, I admit.)<br><br>Speaking of McGowan...I've written him another email and still no response. I don't claim a close relationship with him, though he used to always answer when I wrote. It's been over three months now since his last post. Added to that, a California man named Dave McGowan killed his family and shot himself not long before that post. I'm pretty sure it was a different guy and Jeff has said that McGowan posted on a forum somewhere to say it wasn't him. However, even THAT wasn't too reassurning as McGowan has stated that he doesn't post on other forums. Anyway, if anyone knows anything about what's up with him (hopefully, just a mental health break) I'd love to hear. So, while I assume he's not the McGowan who went postal, it was an eery coincidence...and now he's MIA. <br><br>I love it when my paranoia is proven wrong about these things. Hope someone will do so quickly and let me obsess about something else.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
