rigorousintuition.ca

brainpanhandler wrote:

Nordic wrote:

I wrote: 4) Capturing/killing bin laden?

Well that falls into a completely different category, as there is absolutely ZERO evidence that it happened, other than our government's "word for it".

I mean, we're talking ZERO.

Believe it or not I did not follow that story all that closely either. I agree that if there is zero evidence then it falls into some other category since what I'm interested in are alleged theatrical media versions of reality, not staged but completely contrived. But that's why I've got the ? after "capturing/killing bin laden". I wasn't really sure what evidence contrived or not exists or doesn't.

The thing about that one is that even if you accepted the death, unless you also accepted that he'd been sitting right there in Pakistan for years being undiscoverable to the very CIA that's had every reason to look for him there since they started adding to them with Operation Cyclone in 1979, you'd still have a conspiracy.

So from a conspiracy-having point-of-view, it's....Well. Either no-win or can't lose. Hard to say. But you know what I mean.

compared2what? wrote: Reality/unreality.... blurring the distinctions, confusing people's ability to distinguish useful information from lies, and then creating/promoting the idea that some events that seem to serve the all powerful they in some fashion are strictly ersatz productions? Who does this serve? How is this useful? Who benefits when conspiracy theorists are painted with the ridiculous brush of the it-didn't-happen-at-all crowd?

The ruling class in a large sense defines the parameters of what is real, what is moral, what is just. Those who question these parameters are exercising independent thought. If such independent people are painted as crazy, then this serves as a discouraging mechanism towards those who are considering straying from the herd.

Therefore, painting conspiracy theorists as crazy *always* benefits the ruling class, no matter what society one lives in.

If you were to interview, right now, the eye witnesses of the 67-68 "Mothman" phenomenon or the 1994 Ruwa School alien event in Africa, they'd tell you with a lie detector passing straight face exactly what they said at the time of these events. Same thing with Fatima witnesses if they were to still be living.

I don't have to believe in these things to believe these witnesses. My point in bringing up "Woo" witnesses, is that when it comes to 9/11 or the latest round of American shootings, I tend to believe people's word rather than think they're just actors or under hallucination. Enough people saw AA77 to make me believe it really did smack the Pentagon. Enough people for my satisfaction attended to the Newton shooting to make me know 20 first graders and several teachers died.

As to the who/what/how's, I've no idea. As to bin Laden, I think it was important to "them" that they got the husk of a shivering broken down man known as "Usama bin Laden", but that like with the Pentagon footage/U93 voice recorder, they like to fuck with people and keep em guessing. My money is on bin Laden getting popped in that concrete ISI protected fortress in Abbotcostellobad.

BrandonD wrote:

compared2what? wrote: Reality/unreality.... blurring the distinctions, confusing people's ability to distinguish useful information from lies, and then creating/promoting the idea that some events that seem to serve the all powerful they in some fashion are strictly ersatz productions? Who does this serve? How is this useful? Who benefits when conspiracy theorists are painted with the ridiculous brush of the it-didn't-happen-at-all crowd?

I didn't say the words attributed to me up there, btw.
_______________

ON EDIT: My bad and my apologies. I forgot to delete the part of brainpainhandler's quote from the previous page that I wasn't replying to from my last post before this one. So it did look as if those words were mine. They're bph's though. I took them out, which maybe I shouldn't have done. But you can check back a page.

Shorter version: I'm an idiot. But I only deserve credit for the error and the confusion. I didn't write that.
________________

BrandonD wrote:The ruling class in a large sense defines the parameters of what is real, what is moral, what is just. Those who question these parameters are exercising independent thought. If such independent people are painted as crazy, then this serves as a discouraging mechanism towards those who are considering straying from the herd.

Therefore, painting conspiracy theorists as crazy *always* benefits the ruling class, no matter what society one lives in.

In the world I live in, it benefits nobody to put the truth off-limits on political grounds. Therefore, in the event that I ever encountered a truth that could only justly and accurately be described by calling a conspiracy theorist crazy, I wouldn't hesitate to do it.

But that's a pretty fanciful scenario. And I haven't ever actually done it, afaik.

However. FWIW.

James Tracy is flat-out hustling bullshit when he says that state authorities imposed gag orders, issued threats or invoked prior restraint in connection with Sandy Hook. And I give fuck-all to the ruling class by saying so, despite his being a conspiracy theorist and despite the bullshit he's hustling being hostile to the state.

Because in reality as it's commonly not fully understood, conspiracies do happen and authorities do lie. I'm opposed to that crap on principle. Strongly opposed. It's an intolerable mode of conduct, imo. Therefore, strictly for my own purposes, I refuse to put up with it from anyone. On principle.

I'm just not interested in getting jerked around in that way by anyone a single time more than I can avoid being, basically. James Tracy or anybody. Because by my standards, it's inimical to the concept of human autonomy to hornswoggle the public for any reason, under any circumstances. If he wants to go that route, fine. But I'm not going to say more power to him. Because if that's his choice, he's on their side, not mine. And what he''s saying is crap. I reject it.

___________________

Respectfully dissent, IOW.

compared2what? wrote:

BrandonD wrote:

compared2what? wrote: Reality/unreality.... blurring the distinctions, confusing people's ability to distinguish useful information from lies, and then creating/promoting the idea that some events that seem to serve the all powerful they in some fashion are strictly ersatz productions? Who does this serve? How is this useful? Who benefits when conspiracy theorists are painted with the ridiculous brush of the it-didn't-happen-at-all crowd?

I didn't say the words attributed to me up there, btw.
_______________

ON EDIT: My bad and my apologies. I forgot to delete the part of brainpainhandler's quote from the previous page that I wasn't replying to from my last post before this one. So it did look as if those words were mine. They're bph's though. I took them out, which maybe I shouldn't have done. But you can check back a page.

Shorter version: I'm an idiot. But I only deserve credit for the error and the confusion. I didn't write that.
________________

BrandonD wrote:The ruling class in a large sense defines the parameters of what is real, what is moral, what is just. Those who question these parameters are exercising independent thought. If such independent people are painted as crazy, then this serves as a discouraging mechanism towards those who are considering straying from the herd.

Therefore, painting conspiracy theorists as crazy *always* benefits the ruling class, no matter what society one lives in.

In the world I live in, it benefits nobody to put the truth off-limits on political grounds. Therefore, in the event that I ever encountered a truth that could only justly and accurately be described by calling a conspiracy theorist crazy, I wouldn't hesitate to do it.

But that's a pretty fanciful scenario. And I haven't ever actually done it, afaik.

However. FWIW.

James Tracy is flat-out hustling bullshit when he says that state authorities imposed gag orders, issued threats or invoked prior restraint in connection with Sandy Hook. And I give fuck-all to the ruling class by saying so, despite his being a conspiracy theorist and despite the bullshit he's hustling being hostile to the state.

Because in reality as it's commonly not fully understood, conspiracies do happen and authorities do lie. I'm opposed to that crap on principle. Strongly opposed. It's an intolerable mode of conduct, imo. Therefore, strictly for my own purposes, I refuse to put up with it from anyone. On principle.

I'm just not interested in getting jerked around in that way by anyone a single time more than I can avoid being, basically. James Tracy or anybody. Because by my standards, it's inimical to the concept of human autonomy to hornswoggle the public for any reason, under any circumstances. If he wants to go that route, fine. But I'm not going to say more power to him. Because if that's his choice, he's on their side, not mine. And what he''s saying is crap. I reject it.

___________________

Respectfully dissent, IOW.

What c2w said, but also,

The ruling class in a large sense defines the parameters of what is real, what is moral, what is just.

I would say the ruling class to some unspecified extent attempts and is successful at defining the perameters of what is real. They own all major media outlets after all and write the history after the fact. This is obvious and indisputable. Defining what is moral and just is more problematic, I think, because not even the most sophisticated brainwashing and propaganda can make people abandon basic decency. I know there are a thousand objections which spring to mind. I get that. I'm talking about people's internal moral compass. Having the strength and capacity to act as conscience dictates is another thing and perhaps the only thing that matters really, when you get down to it. So yes, with some possible philospohical caveats.

Those who question these parameters are exercising independent thought. If such independent people are painted as crazy, then this serves as a discouraging mechanism towards those who are considering straying from the herd.

This is basic ct canon. Though the devilish details of application and who points fingers at whom and in the service of what agenda can get messy. Not all "independent" thought is equal. Those considering straying from the herd have to exercise their own independent thought and not only navigate the propaganda but also the ct wheat from chaff. Hence, one of the great values of RI!

Therefore, painting conspiracy theorists as crazy *always* benefits the ruling class, no matter what society one lives in.

See c2w's comments.

BrandonD wrote:Therefore, painting conspiracy theorists as crazy *always* benefits the ruling class, no matter what society one lives in.

Claire Sterling and Michael Ledeen both come to mind as counterfactuals to that theory, although perhaps they just function as "exceptions proving the rule," a concept I have never really grasped.

Wombaticus Rex wrote:

BrandonD wrote:Therefore, painting conspiracy theorists as crazy *always* benefits the ruling class, no matter what society one lives in.

Claire Sterling and Michael Ledeen both come to mind as counterfactuals to that theory, although perhaps they just function as "exceptions proving the rule," a concept I have never really grasped.

That's because the concept is almost always misused. An exception "proves the rule" if there is an actual way in which that exception breaks the rule that allows it to be an exception to the rule in the first place. (Otherwise, the exception disconfirms the rule, but lazy people prefer to say it proves it.)

So of course it's on Wiki, and I just looked it up. Turns out the original meaning, from Cicero no less, was that by specifying an exception, you demonstrate that a rule exists.

Example: Sign that says, "Parking allowed on Sundays" implies a rule prohibiting it at all other times.

Example, from Wiki:

Special leave is given for men to be out of barracks tonight till 11.00 p.m.; "The exception proves the rule" means that this special leave implies a rule requiring men, except when an exception is made, to be in earlier. The value of this in interpreting statutes is plain.

So it's a legal thing.

The one I meant above is given in the Wiki as the "scientific" variation:

Scientific sense

A case may appear at first sight to be an exception to the rule. However, when the situation is examined more closely, it is observed that the rule does not apply to this case, and thus the rule is shown to be valid after all.

Fowler's example is of a critic, Jones, who never writes a favourable review. So it is surprising when he writes a favourable review of a novel by an unknown author. Then it is discovered that the novel is his own, written under a pseudonym. Obviously the rule doesn't apply to this case (although the rule may need to be more precisely stated in future) and the previous evaluation of Jones's ill-nature toward others is re-affirmed.

Whereas the way usually employ it is just nonsensical, or as a kind of superstitious filler phrase. Example:

Serious nonsense

"It will rain on my birthday, it always does."
"It didn't rain last year."
"But the exception proves the rule."

To get back to your point, Sterling and Ledeen do fit. The rule is that trash-talk about deep state and parapolitics inside the US government, establishment or corporate system is "conspiracy theory," whereas the same trash-talk about Iran, Russia or even Europeans is not so labeled, or (even if it is so labeled) still is privileged as realistic and insightful. They don't "prove" but demonstrate the underlying rule, that the interests of the motherfuckers determine what they will say is good or bad.

.

I'm not sure who's purposes, intentionally or unintentionally, that film served. As a conduit of truth I mean.

I mean what happens to people once they question absolutely everything in the media at the most fundamental level? It's one thing to believe that real events are spun, censored, and otherwise distorted for the purposes of the ruling classes. It's another to question whether real events happen at all. I mean most of us cannot routinely travel around our local area in order to verify for ourselves the reality of reported events, let alone the country or world.

On the other hand, as fantastic as the scene above is, is it really so far fetched?

Some people never saw the film and some of those because they had no interest in seeing what they believed (rightly so, at least on the surface) was an anti-war/anti-propaganda film. Some people saw it and came away feeling the whole premise was not just satirically exaggerated but flatly impossible and absurd, without wondering if the screen writers/film makers intended that result. (I'm unsure if they did or not. Was it a warning about the scenario depicted or was it a warning against sliding into solipsism, and therefore apathy, on the basis of believing any and/or all reported events might be entirely fabricated). Some people saw it and came away wondering, "Is that really so far fetched?". And others came away with all their suspicions confirmed.

brainpanhandler wrote:On the other hand, as fantastic as the scene above is, is it really so far fetched?

Not at all. It's how the Incubator Babies, Saddam's WMD, the "Spider Hole Capture," and the bogus stories about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman were produced, and all but one of these examples are just from the US wars on Iraq. It's probably (in spirit, if not in process) how a number of enabling events and massacres were produced, from Gleiwitz to Racak -- as opportunistically false attributions (see Syria, currently), false flag setups, or even whole-cloth fabrications.

It can also serve as a basis for questioning the reality of anything you feel like questioning. It's how a lot of non-traumatic PR is produced that we're mostly unaware of (stories about Brad and Jennifer and A-Rod, corporate and government videos passed off as network reporting, etc. etc.).

What's far-fetched is when we start to think every event that causes a major public trauma (or every or any event, period) was produced or could have been produced in this fashion. Or when we just pick the latest big event and try to cram it into this pattern.

In the case of the examples from the wars on Iraq cited above, the stories began unraveling immediately because of loose ends and contradictions of a significance that I have yet to see with any of the non-evidence or felt evidence produced by those who question whether the Sandy Hook massacre even happened, or by those who simply doubt the main outlines of the presented narrative (a single gunman, now identified, using the stated weapons, killed 26 people and himself).

Which isn't to say I can be certain of anything - as you say, who can go exploring in person on every story that comes out? However, the kind of details people seem to expect in the way of proof (crime scene pictures, for example) would have never been released at this stage, and the releasing entity would always and regardless be the police or higher authorities (just the kind of institutions who lie a lot, but it doesn't mean everything is a lie).

And now they're saying Beyonce' lip synched at the Inauguration!!!

IT"S ALL ONE BIG TRUMAN SHOW!!!

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

brainpanhandler wrote:

Some people never saw the film and some of those because they had no interest in seeing what they believed (rightly so, at least on the surface) was an anti-war/anti-propaganda film. Some people saw it and came away feeling the whole premise was not just satirically exaggerated but flatly impossible and absurd, without wondering if the screen writers/film makers intended that result.

There is even a strange fugue between Larry Beinart's book and what ended up being the movie (for instance, the deletion of the central gumshoe character, a high end security detective) and the book's cheif antagonist (the real life GHW Bush). The book includes footnotes that reference various past times of raw propoganda by intelligence media (such as the deletion of pages from the 911 commission report that detailed Saudi involvement in the financing, support and "general cheer-leading" of Islamic terrorists). The book is better than the movie, but maybe not as entertaining. (Shot in 19 days WTD was a testament to Levinson's hollywood abilities to both direct and produce a picture....but if you ever worked on one of his pictures you would stand warned, never, under any circumstances, were you to speak to him) .

The burden of proof is always on the skeptics and the more ridiculous and internecine the skeptics sound the easier it is for the psychopathic skull fuckers to do what they do with such abandon and joy.

Oh...and kudos to Jack for mentioning the "Incubator Babies." That incident by itself is so transparent almost anyone can understand it and believe it and even feel a sense of shame at being an American once they process the information....right before, that is, it'smedia-ocrity back to LiLo.

thurnundtaxis wrote:And now they're saying Beyonce' lip synched at the Inauguration!!!

IT"S ALL ONE BIG TRUMAN SHOW!!!

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

Beyonce Lip-synced and Te'o's "Girlfriend" says SHE was on the end of a bizarre hoax are the two main stories right now on a lot of news channels.
Good grief.

Well, least we got Super Bowl XXXXXXXIXXXXXX to distract us some more.

re: Gene Rosen

^^Harassment is a crime.*** Entrapment is a tactic. Beware cointel-trolling. (TM)

No personal implications intended. I really just mean "Beware."

________________

***I think cyberharassment is a federal crime. But it might be called something else. I'm too lazy to look.

c2w? said:

^^Harassment is a crime.*** Entrapment is a tactic. Beware cointel-trolling. (TM)

No personal implications intended. I really just mean "Beware."

________________

***I think cyberharassment is a federal crime. But it might be called something else. I'm too lazy to look.

Excuse me? Are you saying it could be called harassment and considered against the LAW for anyone to link to this youtube video? Do you think we might be hauled off to jail for watching the damn thing?

I should hope not.

Have you noticed there are at least a kazillion youtube videos questioning the Sandy Hook massacre/cover-up and there are at least 100 times as many comments in agreement with the general consensus that this event, and the role Rosen played, is possibly...

...No. Fuck that...not possibly...

This event and especially the cover-up of the circumstances surrounding it, are highly suspicious. Far beyond conspiracy. It's blatant lying, bad acting, deception and mind-fuckery.

I'm sorry you don't see it. Have you watched this video? Maybe not the best video out there, and I'm sorry it's so long, but it has collected many Gene Rosen interviews with MSM. He's not very consistant. Unable to recall how many of the six children were girls or boys (4/2, 3/3), saying he took the kids to the fire station in one and changing it to him calling their parents and the parents coming to pick them up at his house in another. WTF!! Anyone, except for Gene, would have called 911 right away. 1st thing, given the circumstances, call the cops, ffs. Wouldn't you have called 911 instead of giving the children juice and toys to play with? Then him taking it upon himself to call their parents? How very suspicious of him. I have my theories but... Good Lord, dare I say anything, ever, at all, ever? No no no, not I.

Regardless, it's little wonder people are unhappy with Gene Rosen.

on the other Sandy Hook thread

c2w? said:

The next time a circumstance arises among conspiracy theorists in which some are saying: "You shouldn't ought to do that, somebody could get hurt," and others are saying, "Traitor! Fascist! Bully! You're not the boss of me!" everybody who's capable of doing so should remember that "somebody could get hurt" is just another way of saying "you could be implicated in one or more felonies for which the FBI would probably be delighted to entrap you."

That's the bottom line.

I guess you gotta do what you gotta do. You and Anderson Cooper.

Gag Orders all around. tyvm.

*

One of the comments following the above video reads:

90 Day Gag Order On Everyone Involved.

Well, Except Gene.

He Was Apparently Told To Never Close His Mouth....