How to Overthrow the Illuminati

[minime]

"In short, we informed our friend, there are no Rothschilds necessary, nor even possible."

If they are not necessary, [then] they are certainly possible.

[Edited to emphasize conditional.]

Furthermore, the less necessary they are, so to speak, the more likely they are.

[Sounder]

coffin_dodger » Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:04 am wrote:I'll explain myself as best as I can. This thread title is 'How to Overthrow the Illuminati'. But actually, it wasn't a discussion about that at all, it was a piece saying "don't believe in the Illuminati, because if you do, you are an anti-semite and an idiot".

That's....actually a pretty fair summation of that OP. Also, "Read Marx."

That is the subtext in my reading also. It struck me as a red shield.

I Want to Believe

By JARROD SHANAHAN

As a point of divergence, however, we insisted that this higher power is ultimately not human, no more than it is divine. It has been called many names over the years, but it’s simply the necessity for capital to accumulate, and for capitalism to expand, destroying all barriers which stand in its way, and incorporating all extant social forms into its own reproduction or else wiping them out. Beheading the king, as they say, we maintained that this process is not exactly executed by, but more specifically through humans, whom it forms as subjects through their daily work and behind their backs.

I find this to be a very strong, clear and useful statement on the Marxist viewpoint toward capital. While I do not agree that it’s ‘simply the necessity for capital to accumulate’, I do respect the idea and the folk using this as a working hypothesis.

When ‘higher power’ is spoken of, imperatives are being identified. I find the focus on capitalism to indeed be more relevant than attribution ‘of all events’ to The Illuminati. But, for me, that is only because Illuminati theory deals with only one side of the control mechanism of this polarized world, while giving a free pass to monarchists and corporations.

Now I do a little model building and have always avoided imperatives because the results always seem to involve so much coercion. So in my recent admiring of the strength and motivating power of the no capitalism imperative, I estimated that this notion ‘could’ win if we don’t identify a still better imperative.

It’s my opinion that this worlds fuckedupery can more accurately be traced to coercion than to capital.

Once more for posterity, "I brand no one. Icke has branded himself, imo. Once again for the reading challenged is what I wrote,: "I feel Icke is worthless and unworthy of discussion here. Obviously, slad, sounder, slim, perhaps coffin_dodger and maybe our new addition, minime feel otherwise and find some comfort in his words and character. Icke is a classic huckster of time immemorial."

I believe that American Dream is the poster here who most thinks that, what’s his name is VERY, VERY worthy of discussion.

The conflation here is to consider criticism of AD's approach with finding some comfort in his(Icke’s) words and character. You are also conflating these posters as being similar in their finding comfort in his words and character.

From my perspective the situation is analogous to the left-wing- Chomsky alliance and the efforts spent to supersede and displace behaviorism.

I agree that ‘Illumaniti theory’ provides poor signifiers to express or explain the nature of what is going on. But I would not care for this crude model to be replaced with the vision that AD has in mind.

As I also do not much care for Chomsky’s stripping words of meaning so they can function more efficiently in a value free command and control signaling apparatus.

Great work if ya can get it.

It also makes little sense to me to think that using crude signifier’s makes one a ‘bad’ person or we would all be ‘bad’ people.

Conflation occurs when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, sharing some characteristics of one another, seem to be a single identity — the differences appear to become lost.[1] In logic, it is the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one, which produces errors or misunderstandings as a fusion of distinct subjects tends to obscure analysis of relationships which are emphasized by contrasts.[2] However, if the distinctions between the two concepts appear to be superficial

So much conflation going on here and everywhere, that some folk must think it's the bread of life.

[coffin_dodger]

I stated that you misconstrued my words to mean something I had not said or written.

Once more for posterity, "I brand no one. Icke has branded himself, imo. Once again for the reading challenged is what I wrote,: "I feel Icke is worthless and unworthy of discussion here. Obviously, slad, sounder, slim, perhaps coffin_dodger and maybe our new addition, minime feel otherwise and find some comfort in his words and character. Icke is a classic huckster of time immemorial."

From that you got, "Well... actually... now you've branded, obviously, slad, sounder, slim and 'perhaps' myself as anti-semitic, nazi, lizard-fearing Holocaust deniers, I feels it's not unreasonable to ask you to justify how you arrived at that conclusion, if that's ok with you."

Now if that's not a profound example of your failure to comprehend my words, to so poorly misinterpret them, I don't know what could be a better example. To so sorely and intentionally misrepresent what I actually wrote would be considered by me to be a much greater offense then a mere misunderstanding of my written words. I feel it's not unreasonable to ask you to justify how you arrived at that conclusion, so how did you get that from what I wrote?

Seems to me you had joined in on the AD pile-on. Perhaps I was mistaken. I did ask you to clarify for us your feelings about Icke, which would be helpful to all to know. You want to send me away to search for something that I now suppose does not exist. This is how you help others to come to understand your viewpoint?

slad, I have no idea what TIA is supposed to represent. Do you really feel I've labeled you as c_d claims? If you do, that's your problem, you're fantasizing.

Now if your finished bickering like children, it would be helpful if coffin_dodger shares with us their view on Icke. I've shared mine.

I'll explain myself as best as I can. This thread title is 'How to Overthrow the Illuminati'. But actually, it wasn't a discussion about that at all, it was a piece saying "don't believe in the Illuminati, because if you do, you are an anti-semite and an idiot".

I do not believe that 'Capitalism' is an organic entity with a life of it's own, randomly mutating, twisting and turning it's way towards an unknown goal. One need only take a cursory look at the banking and financial system to appreciate that particular belief is open to highly critical analysis.

I do believe that there are a group of people, mostly from Europe, some now influential in the USA, that have undue power and influence over the way the world goes about it's business, the direction it takes and what gets done - and what doesn't.

The dissonance here at RI is sometimes perplexing. The term 'elites' and 'tptb' are readily accepted here and understood by all. But it's a fairly subjective form. It's fluffy - possibly an abstract that helps people come to terms with their powerlessness by enabling a finger to be pointed elsewhere. There are rarely names attached to the 'elite' - it's a figure of speech to collectively 'band together' a group of form, but little substance.

However, any mention of Illuminati (one avenue of actually tackling exactly who the 'elites' might be) is met, instantly, with mocking and derision. Not only that, the charge of anti-semetism (one of the greatest taboos in Western Society) is immediately inferred, if not outright stated. And this isn't members of the (possible) Illuminati doing the mocking and deriding and deflection - it's non-vested-interest commoners who are in the shit with rest of us!

I don't profess to know who the Illuminati (or whatever they are called) are. What I do know, from reading this site for many years - and seeing with my own eyes the exposure of so many System secrets hinted at, then fully exposed, is that there are certain places that our societies have been conditioned not to look. Anywhere that I am told not to look (especially those rigidly enforced by the System memes adopted by the public) makes me very suspicious.

I suspect that the Illuminati, if they exist, are not who we have been led to believe they are. I think their nationality is unimportant, even within their own ranks - because they see themselves as 'stewards of the world' - but their actions and it's consequences are important. The revolt at anti-semetism, the memories of the Holocaust and the charge of Nazism are extremely powerful barriers that any secret society, whatever their nationality, could concievably be used to hide themselves behind from further enquiries.

So, the question 'who actually runs the world' seems preposterous to many here, because of course, we're all logical and rational thinkers, taught to think that way by the 'socio-economic soup' in which we live. The question is preposterous and cannot be the case, because, as a rational and logical thinker living in the 'real world' - we would know more about it - if there were any truth in it. But it could equally be argued that most of us know less than we might about 'who runs the world' because we do not allow ourselves to ask the question, due, mainly, to the current paradigm methods of quelling any further specific investigation into it - ridicule, stupidity, accusations of racism, to name but a few.

Anyway, as I've stated before here, I suspect that Greenwald and Wikileaks (and many more whistleblowers, yet to realise they are such) are/will be in receipt of documents that will shed new light on the inner workings and machinations of the power structure of The System. They will continue to stagger the release of any critical documents to avoid not only information overload, but public incredulity at what these documents contain. I'm an onlooker these days, greeting each new revelation with excitement and pondering on what comes next.

Looking around me, my intuition tells me that the die has already been cast for massive social change - it's under whose 'guiding hand' that we get from here to there that compels me to question the System-generated memes that I consider relevent.

But you didn't answer the questions:

"I feel Icke is worthless and unworthy of discussion here. Obviously, slad, sounder, slim, perhaps coffin_dodger and maybe our new addition, minime feel otherwise and find some comfort in his words and character. Icke is a classic huckster of time immemorial."

From that you got, "Well... actually... now you've branded, obviously, slad, sounder, slim and 'perhaps' myself as anti-semitic, nazi, lizard-fearing Holocaust deniers, I feels it's not unreasonable to ask you to justify how you arrived at that conclusion, if that's ok with you."

...

it would be helpful if coffin_dodger shares with us their view on Icke.

I did answer the question posed by Iam - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=37074&start=480#p521250

edited to remove facetious comment.

[brainpanhandler]

I stated that you misconstrued my words to mean something I had not said or written.

Once more for posterity, "I brand no one. Icke has branded himself, imo. Once again for the reading challenged is what I wrote,: "I feel Icke is worthless and unworthy of discussion here. Obviously, slad, sounder, slim, perhaps coffin_dodger and maybe our new addition, minime feel otherwise and find some comfort in his words and character. Icke is a classic huckster of time immemorial."

From that you got, "Well... actually... now you've branded, obviously, slad, sounder, slim and 'perhaps' myself as anti-semitic, nazi, lizard-fearing Holocaust deniers, I feels it's not unreasonable to ask you to justify how you arrived at that conclusion, if that's ok with you."

Now if that's not a profound example of your failure to comprehend my words, to so poorly misinterpret them, I don't know what could be a better example. To so sorely and intentionally misrepresent what I actually wrote would be considered by me to be a much greater offense then a mere misunderstanding of my written words. I feel it's not unreasonable to ask you to justify how you arrived at that conclusion, so how did you get that from what I wrote?

Seems to me you had joined in on the AD pile-on. Perhaps I was mistaken. I did ask you to clarify for us your feelings about Icke, which would be helpful to all to know. You want to send me away to search for something that I now suppose does not exist. This is how you help others to come to understand your viewpoint?

slad, I have no idea what TIA is supposed to represent. Do you really feel I've labeled you as c_d claims? If you do, that's your problem, you're fantasizing.

Now if your finished bickering like children, it would be helpful if coffin_dodger shares with us their view on Icke. I've shared mine.

I'll explain myself as best as I can. This thread title is 'How to Overthrow the Illuminati'. But actually, it wasn't a discussion about that at all, it was a piece saying "don't believe in the Illuminati, because if you do, you are an anti-semite and an idiot".

I do not believe that 'Capitalism' is an organic entity with a life of it's own, randomly mutating, twisting and turning it's way towards an unknown goal. One need only take a cursory look at the banking and financial system to appreciate that particular belief is open to highly critical analysis.

I do believe that there are a group of people, mostly from Europe, some now influential in the USA, that have undue power and influence over the way the world goes about it's business, the direction it takes and what gets done - and what doesn't.

The dissonance here at RI is sometimes perplexing. The term 'elites' and 'tptb' are readily accepted here and understood by all. But it's a fairly subjective form. It's fluffy - possibly an abstract that helps people come to terms with their powerlessness by enabling a finger to be pointed elsewhere. There are rarely names attached to the 'elite' - it's a figure of speech to collectively 'band together' a group of form, but little substance.

However, any mention of Illuminati (one avenue of actually tackling exactly who the 'elites' might be) is met, instantly, with mocking and derision. Not only that, the charge of anti-semetism (one of the greatest taboos in Western Society) is immediately inferred, if not outright stated. And this isn't members of the (possible) Illuminati doing the mocking and deriding and deflection - it's non-vested-interest commoners who are in the shit with rest of us!

I don't profess to know who the Illuminati (or whatever they are called) are. What I do know, from reading this site for many years - and seeing with my own eyes the exposure of so many System secrets hinted at, then fully exposed, is that there are certain places that our societies have been conditioned not to look. Anywhere that I am told not to look (especially those rigidly enforced by the System memes adopted by the public) makes me very suspicious.

I suspect that the Illuminati, if they exist, are not who we have been led to believe they are. I think their nationality is unimportant, even within their own ranks - because they see themselves as 'stewards of the world' - but their actions and it's consequences are important. The revolt at anti-semetism, the memories of the Holocaust and the charge of Nazism are extremely powerful barriers that any secret society, whatever their nationality, could concievably be used to hide themselves behind from further enquiries.

So, the question 'who actually runs the world' seems preposterous to many here, because of course, we're all logical and rational thinkers, taught to think that way by the 'socio-economic soup' in which we live. The question is preposterous and cannot be the case, because, as a rational and logical thinker living in the 'real world' - we would know more about it - if there were any truth in it. But it could equally be argued that most of us know less than we might about 'who runs the world' because we do not allow ourselves to ask the question, due, mainly, to the current paradigm methods of quelling any further specific investigation into it - ridicule, stupidity, accusations of racism, to name but a few.

Anyway, as I've stated before here, I suspect that Greenwald and Wikileaks (and many more whistleblowers, yet to realise they are such) are/will be in receipt of documents that will shed new light on the inner workings and machinations of the power structure of The System. They will continue to stagger the release of any critical documents to avoid not only information overload, but public incredulity at what these documents contain. I'm an onlooker these days, greeting each new revelation with excitement and pondering on what comes next.

Looking around me, my intuition tells me that the die has already been cast for massive social change - it's under whose 'guiding hand' that we get from here to there that compels me to question the System-generated memes that I consider relevent.

But you didn't answer the questions:

"I feel Icke is worthless and unworthy of discussion here. Obviously, slad, sounder, slim, perhaps coffin_dodger and maybe our new addition, minime feel otherwise and find some comfort in his words and character. Icke is a classic huckster of time immemorial."

From that you got, "Well... actually... now you've branded, obviously, slad, sounder, slim and 'perhaps' myself as anti-semitic, nazi, lizard-fearing Holocaust deniers, I feels it's not unreasonable to ask you to justify how you arrived at that conclusion, if that's ok with you."

...

it would be helpful if coffin_dodger shares with us their view on Icke.

I did answer the question posed by Iam - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=37074&start=480#p521250

Indeed, you had answered the latter question..

Iam said:

How about you telling us what it is that you admire so about Icke, to defend his reputation as you are and to condemn as you have those who do not share your viewpoint? I'd really like to know.

OK, seeing as I'm 'reading challenged', perhaps we should start at the very beginning - please bear in mind that I am less intelligent than yourself.

Please refer me to anywhere on this site that I have endorsed, praised or passed any kind of positive comment with regard to David Icke.

Thanks.

As you might guess, I think Icke is very bad news for the conspiracy community and for positive social change.

What about you- what are your thoughts on him?

Well AD, as it happens, I think he's mad. I think he had an 'episode' on a hillock 20-odd years ago that made him delusional. However, I also judge our 'leaders' to be mad. And their sickness worries me a lot more than David Icke does. They have armies - with like, you know, serious fucking weapons of death and destruction - at their disposal. They have a broadly-complicit mass media. They have a financial system at their disposal with which to promote and demote nations as they see fit. I could go on, but you may get the point. Or not. David Icke is a distraction.

My apologies.

Frankly, I'm not all that interested in members' opinions on Icke. I just threw that in. Nor am I interested in grilling members on their personal political beliefs since I would find it annoying to be grilled myself. And we have members here that have complicated, nuanced positions that are not usually easily explained in a few words.

I'm also not impressed with the argument that "icke is bad, but there's much worse to worry about." It's a form of argument I see around here a lot. It's like when the women describe their experiences of misogyny and male members say, "yah, but this is what we have to endure"... or when members make the argument that, "yah, the holocaust was horrible, but how come you haven't mentioned the slaughter of native Americans (or every other atrocity committed by human beings upon other human beings)." Surely you can see how that is a specious way to argue.

At any rate, I was more interested in how and why members twist and radically distort other members words and thoughts:

"I feel Icke is worthless and unworthy of discussion here. Obviously, slad, sounder, slim, perhaps coffin_dodger and maybe our new addition, minime feel otherwise and find some comfort in his words and character. Icke is a classic huckster of time immemorial."

From that you got, "Well... actually... now you've branded, obviously, slad, sounder, slim and 'perhaps' myself as anti-semitic, nazi, lizard-fearing Holocaust deniers, I feels it's not unreasonable to ask you to justify how you arrived at that conclusion, if that's ok with you."

It's a pet peeve of mine, especially as related to Icke. And I note you have not responded to Iam's request for clarification on that score. No skin off my nose.

Merely suggesting that other members have a more charitable view of Icke does not also carry with it accusations of being "anti-semitic, nazi, lizard-fearing Holocaust deniers". That sort of hyperbole and hysteria does nothing to help the discourse around here. No need to feed it, please.

[coffin_dodger]

That sort of hyperbole and hysteria does nothing to help the discourse around here. No need to feed it, please.

Surely you can see how that is a specious way to argue.

Arrogance and a condescending nature is always a sight to behold - thanks for for topping me up for a while!

I have to assume you haven't been keenly following the discourse between slad, sounder, slim and ocassionally searcher and myself regarding the ways to slur anothers character and divert attention from talking about/discussing Zionism and seperately, the actions of Israel on the International stage and even further seperately - the Illuminati.

Frankly, I'm not all that interested in members' opinions on Icke. I just threw that in.

Strange... you seemed keen to have me answer that question (which I had already answered for Iam.)

Merely suggesting that other members have a more charitable view of Icke does not also carry with it accusations of being "anti-semitic, nazi, lizard-fearing Holocaust deniers"

I think you need to have a little chat with AD - he sees it slightly differently.

I could go on - following your lead of minutely dissecting every sentence of your statement and mocking it - but I have some wallpaper to watch and I prefer discussion rather than dismissal of others ideas.

[American Dream]

Merely suggesting that other members have a more charitable view of Icke does not also carry with it accusations of being "anti-semitic, nazi, lizard-fearing Holocaust deniers"

I think you need to have a little chat with AD - he sees it slightly differently.

I have tried so many times to convey that David Icke is to me a canary in the coal mine, rather than the fount of all evil.

As to those who are sympathetic to Icke- which almost no one here admits to, as far as I know- I see it as most likely that there are holes in their politics or reasoning not the hyperbolic straw man of them being by definition "anti-semitic, nazi, lizard-fearing Holocaust deniers".


As my signature says:

[brainpanhandler]

That sort of hyperbole and hysteria does nothing to help the discourse around here. No need to feed it, please.

Surely you can see how that is a specious way to argue.

Arrogance and a condescending nature is always a sight to behold - thanks for for topping me up for a while!

Funny. I really didn't have that in my heart when I wrote those words. Hard not to figure projection is the problem. But to be fair I can pretty easily imagine a good reason why you might have read it that way, in addition to projecting your own arrogance and condescending nature, which despite your admission of having those qualities yourself I also imagine you generally like to deny, to yourself. But I don't know. Maybe I am the one projecting. In fact I am sure I am, which doesn't mean you yourself are not as well. But, like I say. I don't know.

I have to assume you haven't been keenly following the discourse between slad, sounder, slim and ocassionally searcher and myself regarding the ways to slur anothers character and divert attention from talking about/discussing Zionism and seperately, the actions of Israel on the International stage and even further seperately - the Illuminati.

I can't imagine why you would assume that unless our opinions on the matter are so radically different you have no way to understand where I am coming from. I have, fwtw. Even to the point of keenly. Ultimately I fall back on my belief that despite every reason not to we have to take each other at our word here, until it becomes absolutely clear that a member is not speaking in good faith. Doesn't happen often.

Everyone here well understands the pitfalls of unfair accusations of anti-semitism and how it is used disingenuously in a variety of contexts. I've never seen that here. People are just making shit up in their heads.

Merely suggesting that other members have a more charitable view of Icke does not also carry with it accusations of being "anti-semitic, nazi, lizard-fearing Holocaust deniers"

I think you need to have a little chat with AD - he sees it slightly differently.

I'll leave that to you.

I prefer discussion rather than dismissal of others ideas.

As do I!

Except some ideas are well worth dismissal.

[American Dream]

Continues at: http://talaya.net/Illuminati.pdf

[brainpanhandler]

Thank you AD. I read a couple of pages and when I have time I will surely read the rest of that.

You understand of course that this:

George Johnson, the well-known New York Times science writer.

will frighten some away. New York Times science writer?! run away, run away.....

[American Dream]

Thank you AD. I read a couple of pages and when I have time I will surely read the rest of that.

You understand of course that this:

George Johnson, the well-known New York Times science writer.

will frighten some away. New York Times science writer?! run away, run away.....

Yes- unfortunately, that's a given. And yet the article is clearly argued and, I think, accurate in the story it tells...

[Searcher08]

Except some ideas are well worth dismissal.

And there is the rub.

Because if one is looking purely from a 'critical thinking' point of view, thinking becomes a matter of establishing 'Truth'. And the 'Truth' can be approached through the dismissal of that which is 'untrue'. This is the essence of a Judgement based system.

Questions arise
WHO determines WHICH ideas are well worth dismissal?
DIsmissal, HOW?

A system based purely on judgement is using creative or design thinking, or looking at values or taking into account feelings and intuition.

Contrast:
A car should have square wheels

In the judgement system, this is immediately an idea worth dismissing. You immediately make a list of all the things 'wrong' with it. It gets binned.

In a creative / design oriented mode, the focus is on where the idea *leads* to... which might be a very valuable idea.

[Searcher08]

Merely suggesting that other members have a more charitable view of Icke does not also carry with it accusations of being "anti-semitic, nazi, lizard-fearing Holocaust deniers"

I think you need to have a little chat with AD - he sees it slightly differently.

I have tried so many times to convey that David Icke is to me a canary in the coal mine, rather than the fount of all evil.

As to those who are sympathetic to Icke- which almost no one here admits to, as far as I know- I see it as most likely that there are holes in their politics or reasoning not the hyperbolic straw man of them being by definition "anti-semitic, nazi, lizard-fearing Holocaust deniers".


As my signature says:

I dont understand how you use this idiom of a canary in a coal mine is related to Icke. I map this as meaning "Icke would be killed if something very dangerous was present".

IMO the issue is probably that your concepts of anti-semitism and racism are much wider than some others and are actually *defined* by areas such as:
Promulgating or not actively dissociating from
'Rothschild Zionism', 'Illuminati Theory', 'PEZ', 'Annunaki'
and being associated or having any connection with SDI - which is a list of people and or organisations who are known for promulgating or not actively dissociating from the above.

For me, an anti-Semite is someone who hates Jewish people. End of.

MUCH more than the disagreement over the value of Six Degrees of Icke is that over your polemical micromanaged response to them - and yet absolutely NO response to what are usually agreed as FAR more powerful organisations like AIPAC and JINSA.
Icke and Atzmon are not advocating for a war in Syria.

Having seen the response of 'shunning' / 'banishing' and who release 'signed statements',
I personally would not touch people or organisations who did that with a 15ft stick.
I consider it caricature repellent Stalinist nonsense, absolutely abhorrent and from my point of view damages good causes, not cultural critique from a feisty saxophonist or an ayahuasca fan.

[American Dream]

I dont understand how you use this idiom of a canary in a coal mine is related to Icke. I map this as meaning "Icke would be killed if something very dangerous was present".

IMO the issue is probably that your concepts of anti-semitism and racism are much wider than some others and are actually *defined* by areas such as:
Promulgating or not actively dissociating from
'Rothschild Zionism', 'Illuminati Theory', 'PEZ', 'Annunaki'
and being associated or having any connection with SDI - which is a list of people and or organisations who are known for promulgating or not actively dissociating from the above.

For me, an anti-Semite is someone who hates Jewish people. End of.

No- not gettin' it at all. When I allude to David Icke being a canary in the coal mine, my central point of reference is the conspiracy community, such as it is. The acceptance of such a character as being a good guide is a sign that something really, really misguided is afoot. However, Icke is just one example of many- others that I have named such as Springmeier, Cooper, Phillips/O'Brien, Marrs, Maxwell etc. are also canaries.It's just that Icke is one of the most famous/influential of such canaries.

Also racism/anti-Semitism is not as central or uniquely important as you are suggesting. It's also many, many other factors that make up the problem, as the last 30 pages of this thread should make clear.

MUCH more than the disagreement over the value of Six Degrees of Icke is that over your polemical micromanaged response to them - and yet absolutely NO response to what are usually agreed as FAR more powerful organisations like AIPAC and JINSA.
Icke and Atzmon are not advocating for a war in Syria.

The ongoing conflation here on this board of Palestinian liberation with racist, reactionary and/or wacko screeds here leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. It makes me much less inclined to talk about right wing zionist orgs here. If you caught me in my offline life, say in my current activities for BDS and other such Palestinian solidarity activity, talking with people who have values and activities I know I feel good about, you would see me being much more open to talking about such things.

Having seen the response of 'shunning' / 'banishing' and who release 'signed statements',
I personally would not touch people or organisations who did that with a 15ft stick.
I consider it caricature repellent Stalinist nonsense, absolutely abhorrent and from my point of view damages good causes, not cultural critique from a feisty saxophonist or an ayahuasca fan.

I think it makes a great deal of sense for people doing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions organizing to create a lot of distance between their projects and people like "Israel Shamir". This is so obvious that anyone who doesn't get it may not be worth spending much time on.



.

[brainpanhandler]

Except some ideas are well worth dismissal.

And there is the rub.

You may be right that I am missing opportunities to ponder questions like whether cars with square wheels might be a good idea or more charitably that pondering such seemingly absurd ideas might lead to not directly related creative breakthroughs. Maybe so.

But it is still surpassingly strange to me to be considered closed minded. IRL no one who knows me would think such a thing. In fact, just the opposite. This medium plays funny tricks on our perceptions of others. That's something I try to keep in mind and something I too often suspect others here do not.

Questions arise
WHO determines WHICH ideas are well worth dismissal?

I determine FOR ME which ideas are well worth dismissal. But that never means I am not open to new information. At least that is what I believe about myself.

DIsmissal, HOW?

Generally provisional, but as in: 'I don't have to consider that any more right now'. There are also advantages to filtering avenues of thought and information and focusing on what draws ones attention. There are only so many days and hours in ones life and I am not a manic polymath that can read two books, paint a painting, and learn to play Stairway to Heaven in a day. Once I have determined for instance that anything of value that can be gleaned from Ickeland can be gotten from more reputable sources sans the unpleasant and dodgy bits of his worldview then I can dismiss him as far as a source of information. He still merits attention and those like him (*see below) as he is a distraction for otherwise well meaning people that might have to slog through it all to come to the same conclusions I already have. I have afforded myself many times of such short cuts as provided by various members here over the years. The CT universe is very complicated and I have gained a lot of help navigating my way among all the pitfalls, first by Jeff with his blog and then later here on the message board.

I understand how some consider AD's approach to be patronizing with his "danger..beware" mode of being, as though people cannot make their own determinations. I think AD's intentions are nothing but good and hating on AD is really way, way over the top.

*
I ran across this Sid Roth character's show last night on cable. He had this Tom Horn on as well. I had never heard of either. It's risible on the face of it, except that it's not. This crap just muddies the water and paints the conspiracy community with the silly brush. And somehow I don't find it hard to imagine some sort of monstrous marriage between fascism and these sorts of kooks. I ask, what sort of purpose do they serve? For whom? I'm not suggesting Icke is a protofascist or that there is a one to one correspondence between these kooks and Icke. In fact, I take Icke over these two ass clowns any day. But from a credibility standpoint they're on a par in my book.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAK2Mtce9gw

[Iamwhomiam]

coffin_dodger, not attempting to argue, but only to offer a further clarification.

There was more than one, but the other later question I asked you remains unanswered.

Iamwhoiam wrote: Once more for posterity, "I brand no one. Icke has branded himself, imo. Once again for the reading challenged is what I wrote,: "I feel Icke is worthless and unworthy of discussion here. Obviously, slad, sounder, slim, perhaps coffin_dodger and maybe our new addition, minime feel otherwise and find some comfort in his words and character. Icke is a classic huckster of time immemorial."

From that you got, "Well... actually... now you've branded, obviously, slad, sounder, slim and 'perhaps' myself as anti-semitic, nazi, lizard-fearing Holocaust deniers, I feels it's not unreasonable to ask you to justify how you arrived at that conclusion, if that's ok with you."

Now if that's not a profound example of your failure to comprehend my words, to so poorly misinterpret them, I don't know what could be a better example. To so sorely and intentionally misrepresent what I actually wrote would be considered by me to be a much greater offense then a mere misunderstanding of my written words. I feel it's not unreasonable to ask you to justify how you arrived at that conclusion, so how did you get that from what I wrote?

The reason I've pointed this out is because I'm curious as to how you've equivocated what I actually wrote with your claim of me "branding" others. Your claim is so foreign to my words meaning, at least in my view, as to leave me baffled. I really don't see how it's possible to get what you claimed from what I wrote. Please do explain.

I'm thinking it must be a special kind of critical thinking I'm completely ignorant of.