rigorousintuition.ca

As I recall, I posted an article of his, found through a random search on the Internet. He then followed the pingback here and jumped into the fray.

I mostly let him fight his own battles but then when a group of y'all were all ganging up on him in really problematic ways, often attempting to frame things (e.g. demonize him) in a very black and white way that was false and/or misleading, I did get involved on "his side" to a limited degree. But mostly, I stayed out of that, which may have helped fulfill a conscious goal of some of y'all...

yea you link to Mr. Built A Burger (friend of Randi and climate change denier) and that's perfectly find...and yet we get no apology from you

American Dream » Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:00 pm wrote:As I recall, I posted an article of his, found through a random search on the Internet. He then followed the pingback here and jumped into the fray.

I mostly let him fight his own battles but then when a group of y'all were all ganging up on him in really problematic ways, often attempting to frame things (e.g. demonize him) in a very black and white way that was false and/or misleading, I did get involved on "his side" to a limited degree. But mostly, I stayed out of that, which may have helped fulfill a conscious goal of some of y'all...

Two things:
First,
When I read your reply I felt deflated that I had not been shown empathy. Your reply shows no interest or concern about what I said, it was a justification of your behaviour, one which uses very 'loaded' language
1 ganging up on him
2 in problematic ways
3 demonize him
4 very black and white
5 false and / or misleading
6 involved "on his side"
7 to a limited degree

I want to hear you say you understand and can feel what others in their world find upsetting and appalling and anti-RI about Team B and TruthLandians.

Would it surprise you that your behaviour around MasonBilderberg mirrors that of what you see doing around David Icke and Team A, the HateLandians?

Searcher08 » 20 Dec 2013 19:50 wrote:

American Dream » Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:00 pm wrote:As I recall, I posted an article of his, found through a random search on the Internet. He then followed the pingback here and jumped into the fray.

I mostly let him fight his own battles but then when a group of y'all were all ganging up on him in really problematic ways, often attempting to frame things (e.g. demonize him) in a very black and white way that was false and/or misleading, I did get involved on "his side" to a limited degree. But mostly, I stayed out of that, which may have helped fulfill a conscious goal of some of y'all...

Two things:
First,
When I read your reply I felt deflated that I had not been shown empathy. Your reply shows no interest or concern about what I said, it was a justification of your behaviour, one which uses very 'loaded' language
1 ganging up on him
2 in problematic ways
3 demonize him
4 very black and white
5 false and / or misleading
6 involved "on his side"
7 to a limited degree

I want to hear you say you understand and can feel what others in their world find upsetting and appalling and anti-RI about Team B and TruthLandians.

Would it surprise you that your behaviour around MasonBilderberg mirrors that of what you see doing around David Icke and Team A, the HateLandians?

Do people get reassigned in these situations?

I hope they all get asked to look in the mirror.

Not in the conventional sense of course.

Searcher08 » Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:50 pm wrote:

American Dream » Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:00 pm wrote:As I recall, I posted an article of his, found through a random search on the Internet. He then followed the pingback here and jumped into the fray.

I mostly let him fight his own battles but then when a group of y'all were all ganging up on him in really problematic ways, often attempting to frame things (e.g. demonize him) in a very black and white way that was false and/or misleading, I did get involved on "his side" to a limited degree. But mostly, I stayed out of that, which may have helped fulfill a conscious goal of some of y'all...

Two things:
First,
When I read your reply I felt deflated that I had not been shown empathy. Your reply shows no interest or concern about what I said, it was a justification of your behaviour, one which uses very 'loaded' language
1 ganging up on him
2 in problematic ways
3 demonize him
4 very black and white
5 false and / or misleading
6 involved "on his side"
7 to a limited degree

I want to hear you say you understand and can feel what others in their world find upsetting and appalling and anti-RI about Team B and TruthLandians.

Would it surprise you that your behaviour around MasonBilderberg mirrors that of what you see doing around David Icke and Team A, the HateLandians?

Empathy for what in particular?

And can you understand why I might feel defensive after: first the gang up and demonization, second what seems like an attempt to blame me for somebody's else's differences with y'all?

At this point, should I look in the mirror?

My own position is that I personally abhor both
A) anti-Semitic, racist, mysogynist, homophobic, Far Right philosophies
AND
B) preaching, censorious, elite-because-we-are oppressed/suffer, holier-than-thou, blinkered, patronizing, ostracizing, binary-logic, de-humanising reductionist ones

I hear you saying that you have a need to have RI free of what you regard as Team A
I can understand that.
I wrote self-disclosingly about my personal experiences in my life with Jewish people in the previous post (which you ignored completely), to let you know that I am VERY aware of your concerns and the concerns behind the concerns.

There is also a clear 'line in the sand' in the board rules. They do NOT exclude talking about David Icke. He was talked about in a highly critical broad based way that did not become obsessive, and curiously there was a much richer exploration of positive negative and interesting points around him before you started flying the Truthlandia interceptors.

If I want RI to be as free as possible of Team B, will I have my need for that listened to and explored respectfully? Or just addressed as ...
'Empathy about what?'

AD dont do empathy

Searcher08 » Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:29 pm wrote:My own position is that I personally abhor both
A) anti-Semitic, racist, mysogynist, homophobic, Far Right philosophies
AND
B) preaching, censorious, elite-because-we-are oppressed/suffer, holier-than-thou, blinkered, patronizing, ostracizing, binary-logic, de-humanising reductionist ones

I hear you saying that you have a need to have RI free of what you regard as Team A
I can understand that.
I wrote self-disclosingly about my personal experiences in my life with Jewish people in the previous post (which you ignored completely), to let you know that I am VERY aware of your concerns and the concerns behind the concerns.

There is also a clear 'line in the sand' in the board rules. They do NOT exclude talking about David Icke. He was talked about in a highly critical broad based way that did not become obsessive, and curiously there was a much richer exploration of positive negative and interesting points around him before you started flying the Truthlandia interceptors.

If I want RI to be as free as possible of Team B, will I have my need for that listened to and explored respectfully? Or just addressed as ...
'Empathy about what?'

The proverbial Devil is in the details here- it all seems to depend on how we define Far Right ideas, Racism, Reductionism etc., and I don't think the idea is to cleanse personalities, though I would like to see the guidelines better fulfilled.

As to your stuff about your Jewish friends and whatnot, I'd like to revisit that when I'm less busy and, quite honestly, less annoyed. We all know that some people who condone bigotry say, "Some of my best friends are..."

I'm not saying you do condone bigotry- I honestly can't remember the nuances of your position on holocausts, Jewish bankers, the Rothschild Family etc.

Let's return to that later- I gotta go now...

American Dream » 20 Dec 2013 20:43 wrote:

Searcher08 » Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:29 pm wrote:My own position is that I personally abhor both
A) anti-Semitic, racist, mysogynist, homophobic, Far Right philosophies
AND
B) preaching, censorious, elite-because-we-are oppressed/suffer, holier-than-thou, blinkered, patronizing, ostracizing, binary-logic, de-humanising reductionist ones

I hear you saying that you have a need to have RI free of what you regard as Team A
I can understand that.
I wrote self-disclosingly about my personal experiences in my life with Jewish people in the previous post (which you ignored completely), to let you know that I am VERY aware of your concerns and the concerns behind the concerns.

There is also a clear 'line in the sand' in the board rules. They do NOT exclude talking about David Icke. He was talked about in a highly critical broad based way that did not become obsessive, and curiously there was a much richer exploration of positive negative and interesting points around him before you started flying the Truthlandia interceptors.

If I want RI to be as free as possible of Team B, will I have my need for that listened to and explored respectfully? Or just addressed as ...
'Empathy about what?'

The proverbial Devil is in the details here- it all seems to depend on how we define Far Right ideas, Racism, Reductionism etc., and I don't think the idea is to cleanse personalities, though I would like to see the guidelines better fulfilled.

As to your stuff about your Jewish friends and whatnot, I'd like to revisit that when I'm less busy and, quite honestly, less annoyed. We all know that some people who condone bigotry say, "Some of my best friends are..."

I'm not saying you do condone bigotry- I honestly can't remember the nuances of your position on holocausts, Jewish bankers, the Rothschild Family etc.

Let's return to that later- I gotta go now...

Slimmouse says,

"I may have met 4 Jewish people who I came to know well over the past 20 years or so, and gnerally speaking they were all very good people"


AD says, at the end of the searcher post ......"some of my best friends are...."

I personally was very moved by what I heard from searcher about sharing festivals with Jewish friends. Human friends.

But then of course I would be, cos Im a raving closet antisemite. See AD for proof.




Why does the truth need a law to defend itself ?

What is money?

slimmouse » Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:14 pm wrote:
Why does the truth need a law to defend itself ?

What is money?

Why do you keep posing those questions? Is it because you yourself can't- or won't- provide a definitive answer?

Ive already answered the questions. You werent looking. To be fair, I may have done so on previous occasion and on other threads, which you may not have read.

The first answer is of course a no brainer. To me at least, anyoine who considers that truth needs laws to protect it, is clinically certifiable.

Meanwhile, Money, to me, for most people represents their time, their labour, their soul to some extent, because almost everyone needs money and is thus required to obtain it in order to survive.

And Money is of course an age old scam played on civilisation by a tiny few very rich people

slimmouse » Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:00 am wrote:Ive already answered the questions. You werent looking. To be fair, I may have done so on previous occasion and on other threads, which you may not have read.

The first answer is of course a no brainer. To me at least, anyoine who considers that truth needs laws to protect it, is clinically certifiable.

Meanwhile, Money, to me, for most people represents their time, their labour, their soul to some extent, because almost everyone needs money and is thus required to obtain it in order to survive.

And Money is of course an age old scam played on civilisation by a tiny few very rich people

Well yeah, I wouldn't be asking if I knew the (unnamed) previous occasion and had read the (unnamed) other threads. This should be self-evident. So basically I was looking and you are just playing games with me. Why?

Also, I did already give you an answer to the first question, in spite of your bullshit agent-baiting previously in this thread:

American Dream » Wed Dec 18, 2013 5:09 pm wrote:

slimmouse » Wed Dec 18, 2013 4:57 pm wrote:And thats your answer to my question, Mr "not so slippery"?

For the millionth time ( to use an AD exxageration), you refuse to answer.

Keep on postin wont ya.

It prolly pays the bills.

My answer: The State often tries to regulate communication, including communications that are true, false, or somewhere in between...

As to your second question, you'll recall that I declined to "continue playing 20 questions with you", after I gave you an answer to it much previously and you never had anything substantive to say, claiming you didn't understand the response:

American Dream » Wed Dec 18, 2013 5:22 pm wrote:

slimmouse » Wed Dec 18, 2013 5:11 pm wrote:You know what?

I'd really love to know what AD feels about how money works. His opinions on how it is created and all the rest of it. His own perception of this particular deception.

Not some stupid 10 page essay from some chump or other, but rather what AD thinks.

Very brief answer: I think there are are a million and one unjust shenanigans connected with Finance Capital but there are an equal number of injustices connected to Productive Capital. They are two sides of the same coin, all part of the same system. This is where far right, crypto-racist bankster discourse loses the plot...

So dude, you're seriously fronting, and your own answers to your questions are so fluffy as to be almost meaningless...

Searcher08 » Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:29 pm wrote:One of the issues that I have had is that the dynamics of Ickean conversations have never looked in detail at Icke-as-a-system. I find him interesting-in-detail, and would like to address some of the things that he does in 'connecting the dots'.

My own position is that I personally abhor both
A) anti-Semitic, racist, mysogynist, homophobic, Far Right philosophies
AND
B) preaching, censorious, elite-because-we-are oppressed/suffer, holier-than-thou, blinkered, patronizing, ostracizing, binary-logic, de-humanising reductionist ones

I really think they are both a pile of crap and as I said before, in a look at what is currently causing harm in the world, B is currently in the ascendent.

My biggest beef with you has been the people you have given encouragement to from Team B in service of fighting Team A.

To try and compare, how would you have felt if I had High-5'ed St0rmfr0nt people who had invaded RI to 'discuss' worldview B

My purpose in doing these 'reversals' is to invite you to consider a different point of view - I certainly dont consider you an unempathic person - I am just asking to shift viewpoint, apply empathy and tell me how it was.

I would like you to know...
Certainly for myself as someone whose family includes Jewish people, celebrates holidays together including eating and laughing around great funny meals where everyone talks at once and there are ten conversations happening at the same time, lived with Jewish people, have deep long term (multi-decade) friendships with Jewish people, directly worked with and for Jewish people, been in relationships with Jewish women and had a past life experience of life as a Rabbi teaching in a central European yeshiva

I'm working towards having empathy for the position you express here. I get that you would never endorse racism or other forms of bigotry and that you value the goodwill you have towards Jewish people in your life.

Have I got that right?

I don't really get how you portray "Team B", however. It seems to me that you are combining the categories of (aggressive, loud) "skeptics" and/or atheists with (aggressive, loud) people who are into privilege politics or something. As I'm aware of it, those categories don't overlap so much. So what do you mean here?

slimmouse » Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:14 pm wrote: Why does the truth need a law to defend itself ?

I'll give this a try.

In the various contexts you keep asking this question I think it would be useful to reword the question as Why does the historical truth need a law to defend itself ?

I think we could make a fairly good guess in broad brush strokes as to what historical truth would look like if the axis powers had won the war. No? It's a trite truism that the victors write the history and I would think it is fairly uncontroversial around here that historical truth can get mangled in the process.

In the case of the Jewish holocaust of ww II the danger is that revisionists can rewrite the history for the losers. I think we can all agree that fascism is not some long dead ideology. I think we can all also agree that anti-semitism is alive and well. Purveyors of the pez in whatever form are enablers of this lurking menace that will probably never be better left to itself. It requires vigilance.

Some historical truths are so overwhelmingly documented and yet so horrible to contemplate that despite their unassailable veracity they require laws to protect them from revisionists with agendas other than innocently seeking to find out the truth. Believe it or not sometimes the truth is KNOWN. Really. It is. We're not talking about metaphysics here.

There are many laws proscribing and prohibiting holocaust revisionism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_again ... ust_denial

The purposes of these various laws are not singularly to protect the truth. In some cases they are fairly considered prophylactic. NEVER AGAIN.

In some cases the laws are aimed at sparing the survivors and their families the horrible indignity of having their suffering denied. Sort of like suggesting the victims at the boston bombing were really actors.

Case in point:

Israel Shamir wrote:Surprisingly, Cambodians have no bad memories of that period. This is quite an amazing discovery for an infrequent visitor. I did not come to reconstruct “the truth”, whatever it is, but rather to find out what is the collective memory of the Cambodians, how do they perceive the events of the late 20th century, what narrative has been filtered down by time gone by. The omnipotent narrative-making machinery of the West has embedded in our conscience the image of bloody Khmer Rouge commies cannibalising their own people over the Killing Fields and ruled over by a nightmarish Pol Pot, anybody’s notion of ruthless despot.

A much quoted American professor, RJ Rummel, wrote that “out of a 1970 population of probably near 7,100,000 …almost 3,300,000 men, women, and children were murdered …most of these… were murdered by the communist Khmer Rouge”. Every second person was killed, according to his estimate.

However, Cambodia’s population was not halved but more than doubled since 1970, despite alleged multiple genocides. Apparently, the genocidaires were inept, or their achievements have been greatly exaggerated.

(Pol Pot Revisited)


Historians are not a particularly respected profession.

Think about how easy it would be to get a fairly large portion of the population of the US for instance to believe there was never a native american genoci ... oh yeah...