9 QUESTIONS FOR THE 9/11 COMMISSION | Jesse Ventura Off The Grid

[BaalChatzaf]

You will notice that the more evidence that accumulates to disprove the Conspiracy Theories, the more proof (according to the Conspiricy Theorist) that the conspiracy exists. If you point to the falsifying evidence the Theorists will reply --- that is what They want you to think.

[Jonathan]

What you are doing is disgusting, Dean. You obviously haven't done the necessary work to examine the Marathon hoax claims. I don't know why you specifically call out the maimed as actors, and I cannot explain how you became endowed with expertise in decoding disaster footage.

What is disgusting is the victim-snuffing. You deny the deaths and you deny the injuries and you deny every single witness to the events. They are participants in a hoax. You deny their suffering. That is foul to me.

I find it deeply depressing that you have given up the tools of reason to investigate and debunk these fearsome tales.

I am shocked, too, still, that you could not see the delusional reasoning at the sites you cite, It's as if you read them once and did not seek counter-arguments, other critical sites and information.

There is something wrong here, Dean. Your reason is not working on the Marathon issue. It's not just that you are incurious about the rational arguments made against the nutterzone crap on Marathon. It's also that you don't know when you are wrong. How would you know if you are wrong here, Dean?

I won't respond to you on these subjects. I think you need some help getting at the truth, or at least some knuckling down to do a critical review of your own. Reason should instruct you that the ramifications of a hoax in this instance mean that many hundreds of people were deeply implicated.

That is where you can go crazy, imaging the entire scenario of the Marathon bombing, now under the control of a Hollywood "them."

I hope you haven't gone permanently crazy already. This side-thread deserves exile in the Garbage Pile.

Give it a few years, and then Dean probably won't remember advocating the nutty shit that he's preaching today. That's the way that it appears to work with him. His rationality and his "filters" take a very long time to kick in, and once they do, he forgets about having believed and hysterically advocated his screwball notions. He seems to be pretty bright in very limited areas, but he seems to believe that his intelligence in those limited areas magically translates to all other areas. Of course, it doesn't, and therefore Dean ends up being very easily duped about certain things, and revealing how foolish he is outside of his area of expertise.

Five years from now, ask him about the bombing and what he thinks of it, and he'll probably calmly tell you some reasonable bits of information that he has learned about it, without any memory of his batshit crazy stuff.

And then he'll start talking insane frootloop nonsense about some other subject, with absolute confidence and not even the slightest inkling that he should have learned something from his previous embarrassments.

J

[deanwins]

Mikee,

"Believing this is possible is decidedly a different view of human nature than an objectivist one where malignant evil is the exception not the rule. It has occurred to me that you don't really believe this but believe a revolution is necessary and are promoting ideas that lead to revolution sooner rather than later.

Hm, no, deception is not in my playbook. I'd rather be a nobody and raise my family in safety then... if I was into deceiving people then I would probably would move my way up in the ranks of the Federal Reserve & big bank revolving door. At this point I don't think a revolution is possible. The only thing I call for is the end of the monopoly enforcement of US dollars. But I don't even call for this very loudly, only between myself and other intellectuals.

Here's my worldview of human nature (stated elsewhere): humans fill niches just like any other form of life, only humans fill new potential niches faster than any other organism due to our higher intellegence. Humans are only "good" (following NIOF principal = good) to the extent that they individually benefit (benefit = life's goal: successful reproduction) from specialization and trade rather than initation of force. This follows much more closely to evolution than any Randian dream of what human nature might be.

The technological state of our society where there was a significant vulnerability of gold to government theft. Eventually in our nation's history elite manipulators found there way into key power positions in our government. They stole the gold and ever since have had increadible control over our society, basically being able to fabricate as much money as they want to buy people and have bought people do whatever they want.

The elite manipulator niche has been flourishing. At the same time, generosity, prosperity, and eventually the duty ethic manipulation lead to vast expansion of a needy lower class of citizens who have no need to think, only need to accept handouts from the elite manipulators.

There are not enough elite producers, nor enough smart poeple in the world to combat all of the above manipuation. There is just too many of them (elite manipuators and needy sheep). Austrian economics has no chance vs Keynesian economics in this scenario, because when people fail to think for themselves, they have no way to differentiate between sound economic arguments with promises that there will be prosperity if we let people keep what they work for versus promises of government handouts. Then, there is a strong resounding question I would ask: isn't it very possible that a significant portion of the human population doesn't care that much what their living condition is, so long as they get their basic needs met (live long enough to successfuly reproduce)... such people wouldn't even want prosperity, they would gladly live at the expense of others if that means they don't have to work nor think.

Its similar to why religion (worldview manipuation) is so popular, although fiat money enforcement is way more profitable than tithe collection. In here Objectivism tries to combat this manipulation... but again here the manipulators promises and the threat of hell trick are much more convincing to the sheep than Objectivist "this life is the only one we get" objective worldview. And the manipulator's tithe collection is much more profitable enabling them to spend much more on convincing people to become new members than us.

Coming to the conclusion that Christianity is a manipulation... and coming to the conclusion that 9/11 is a manipulation... are the same thing, only the question of how manipulative people can be and how manipulatable people can be is scaled on not an all or nothing, but rather a continual scale.

[Jonathan]

Its similar to why religion (worldview manipuation) is so popular, although fiat money enforcement is way more profitable than tithe collection. In here Objectivism tries to combat this manipulation... but again here the manipulators promises and the threat of hell trick are much more convincing to the sheep than Objectivist "this life is the only one we get" objective worldview. And the manipulator's tithe collection is much more profitable enabling them to spend much more on convincing people to become new members than us.

Coming to the conclusion that Christianity is a manipulation... and coming to the conclusion that 9/11 is a manipulation... are the same thing, only the question of how manipulative people can be and how manipulatable people can be is scaled on not an all or nothing, but rather a continual scale.

Dean, you're the one who is being manipulated. And by dunces. You're being played by people who are worse than the worst Christian manipulators. You're being tricked and fooled into acting like a total douchebag. And the really pathetic thing is that the tricks that are fooling you aren't even sophisticated or complex, or anywhere near to being convincing.

You're eager to believe something, and manipulators are taking advantage of you by giving you the conspiracies that you want to believe in.

You are the sheep.

J

[Mikee]

Mikee,

"Believing this is possible is decidedly a different view of human nature than an objectivist one where malignant evil is the exception not the rule. It has occurred to me that you don't really believe this but believe a revolution is necessary and are promoting ideas that lead to revolution sooner rather than later.

Hm, no, deception is not in my playbook. I'd rather be a nobody and raise my family in safety then... if I was into deceiving people then I would probably would move my way up in the ranks of the Federal Reserve & big bank revolving door. At this point I don't think a revolution is possible. The only thing I call for is the end of the monopoly enforcement of US dollars. But I don't even call for this very loudly, only between myself and other intellectuals.

Here's my worldview of human nature (stated elsewhere): humans fill niches just like any other form of life, only humans fill new potential niches faster than any other organism due to our higher intellegence. Humans are only "good" (following NIOF principal = good) to the extent that they individually benefit (benefit = life's goal: successful reproduction) from specialization and trade rather than initation of force. This follows much more closely to evolution than any Randian dream of what human nature might be.

The technological state of our society where there was a significant vulnerability of gold to government theft. Eventually in our nation's history elite manipulators found there way into key power positions in our government. They stole the gold and ever since have had increadible control over our society, basically being able to fabricate as much money as they want to buy people and have bought people do whatever they want.

The elite manipulator niche has been flourishing. At the same time, generosity, prosperity, and eventually the duty ethic manipulation lead to vast expansion of a needy lower class of citizens who have no need to think, only need to accept handouts from the elite manipulators.

There are not enough elite producers, nor enough smart poeple in the world to combat all of the above manipuation. There is just too many of them (elite manipuators and needy sheep). Austrian economics has no chance vs Keynesian economics in this scenario, because when people fail to think for themselves, they have no way to differentiate between sound economic arguments with promises that there will be prosperity if we let people keep what they work for versus promises of government handouts. Then, there is a strong resounding question I would ask: isn't it very possible that a significant portion of the human population doesn't care that much what their living condition is, so long as they get their basic needs met (live long enough to successfuly reproduce)... such people wouldn't even want prosperity, they would gladly live at the expense of others if that means they don't have to work nor think.

Its similar to why religion (worldview manipuation) is so popular, although fiat money enforcement is way more profitable than tithe collection. In here Objectivism tries to combat this manipulation... but again here the manipulators promises and the threat of hell trick are much more convincing to the sheep than Objectivist "this life is the only one we get" objective worldview. And the manipulator's tithe collection is much more profitable enabling them to spend much more on convincing people to become new members than us.

Coming to the conclusion that Christianity is a manipulation... and coming to the conclusion that 9/11 is a manipulation... are the same thing, only the question of how manipulative people can be and how manipulatable people can be is scaled on not an all or nothing, but rather a continual scale.

It's true that the astonishing gains in productivity of the last few decades have been stolen by financial manipulations and clever political lies. People in the US are living better than ever before but the lost possibilities stagger the imagination. The Christian religion is a way of life. In its time it replaced the drudgery of life by a vision of everlasting joy which may have gotten legions of our forbears through their day to day lives. It also promoted moral principles, don't steal, don't kill, don't covet your neighbors wife, treat others as you would be treated yourself, a strong work ethic, enduring great trials. The roots in Judaism instilled respect for and a thirst for knowledge. One god suggests the unity of nature, a benevolent god suggests a benevolent universe. It is no accident the enlightenment and renaissance happened in Christian nations. It is no surprise that politicians have stolen a twisted and warped version of Christian principles and call it democracy and equality and fairness and use it to steal people blind using their own innate sense of humanity against them. This does not mean most people are evil or stupid. It certainly does not make a conspiracy plot as you've described a plausible explanation for 911. I can't tell you what to do or think Dean but I don't think your feet are on solid ground.

[william.scherk]

Well, Dean and William, I wish you hadn't put up those pictures. They were worse than a lot of war wounds and I've seen hundreds. Pictures are not arguments and tend to spike thinking.

There is another problem of non-experts pretending to be expert enough to tell the world what really happened. There is more mileage in the Grassy Knoll. Please go there instead. Especially if you have no autopsy photographs.

--Brant

dueling photographs--yecht!

I am sorry if I horrified anyone with those photos. I've added spoilers to my earlier comment. I quite agree that photos are not arguments. I first responded to Dean's nasty, ignorant comment ... "Where is the blood? Shouldn't that black lady in the red and white shirt be covered in blood after giving the amputee a blowjob (or whatever she was doing between his "legs")?

Where is the blood? I gave him images of blood, which he said were faked. When I asked him what he would say to the lady pictured who lost her legs, he said, "Sorry, next time use more smoke and more fake blood."

I am sorry that my disgust led to posting more horrifying images of the Boston carnage.

**************************************

Brant, if we are all non-expert in such things as crime-scene footage analysis, would this mean we should be agnostic about what we do see? Moreover, accepting that you, me, Ba'al, Mikee, Jonathan and Dean are non-expert, does this mean only that 'something happened'? Don't we get to investigate using the sharpest tools of reason?

I mean, can you tell us what really happened in Boston that day of death, Brant? Would you honestly deny the deaths, deny the maimings, the amputations, the bereaved? Will you deny that Jeff Baumann lost his legs in the bombing? tell us that the explosion was fake itself? tell us all about how the hospitals faked their response, how all the EMT personnel are actors/liars?

In other words, are you hinting that you (and the rest of us) are on the whole incapable of coming to a well-reasoned conclusion about the events in Boston?

(What's the freaking point of the Kennedy red herring? Are you going to tell us that we cannot know what happened in Boston because you don't know what happened in Dallas? You can't come to a reasoned conclusion about Dean's claims without Boston autopsy photos? Yikes.)

What you are doing is disgusting, Dean. You obviously haven't done the necessary work to examine the Marathon hoax claims. I don't know why you specifically call out the maimed as actors, and I cannot explain how you became endowed with expertise in decoding disaster footage.

What is disgusting is the victim-snuffing. You deny the deaths and you deny the injuries and you deny every single witness to the events. They are participants in a hoax. You deny their suffering. That is foul to me.

Five years from now, ask him about the bombing and what he thinks of it, and he'll probably calmly tell you some reasonable bits of information that he has learned about it, without any memory of his batshit crazy stuff.

Well, I am glad you have hope or faith that Dean will return from down the rabbit hole, where one can believe six impossible things before breakfast. I am not so sanguine, as it seems there is some crucial missing cognition undermining Dean's arguments, missing applications.

One such application is the useful Occam's Razor. It is as if Dean does not find the multiplied entailments of the 'hoax' scenario at all unusual or extraordinary. These don't appear to be noticed, let alone considered in his arguments so far. Yet these multiple entailments make the explanatory hypothesis of hoax grotesquely complex. Instead of the most parsimonious explanation -- that two bombs exploded, injuring and maiming and killing -- we get an enormous cast and crew all working like clockwork to fake the entire event and aftermath.

I mean, how does he explain that the amputated, injured, maimed (in this case, Jeff Baumman**)? Er, it seems he thinks Jeff was a total fake. Every drop of blood was fake. His shocking appearance in the famous photos was faked. He was a previous amputee and every photo evidence that he had legs before the bombing is fake. Every other 'injured' co-conspirator had a fake pre-bombing persona. Every leader of the plot enforced complete adhesion. No leaks. No outraged whistle-blowers from the inside. No disgusted defectors. No suspicious observers report contemporaneously. Nobody from a hospital that remarked upon the fakery they were forced to perform (fake amputations, fake injury care, fake rehabilitation, fake fake fakety fake). Each purported hospital admission accompanied by further ramifications involving lying family members, lying doctors, lying nurses and lying media completely captive of "Them."

Is it not unwarranted to assume that these ramifications can survive Occam's Razor? Is it not much more likely that the simplest explanation is true in this case -- especially when the ramifications are so immense and complex?

I believe that the more credible account of the events in Boston is one which does not spin off multiple entailments. Each one of those entailments adds only bizarre nonsense to a paranoid thesis, to my eyes. And if Dean cannot discern which 'evidence' is spurious and which argument is specious now, then how can he come to more rational conclusions later?

Jonathan I hope you are right and I am wrong, very wrong. I hope Dean snaps out of his infatuation with nonsense. Maybe one by one he will examine each belief with the full complement of rationality he has been blessed with. At the moment, he doesn't seem willing or agreeable to even quote or cite objections to his theorizing. I don't believe he has said to himself: "I might be wrong. I should carefully consider the counterarguments that have been made to the scenarios of 'Hoax.'"

Maybe one way to help him recover his reason is to quote from the strongest arguments against his reading of events. I would do this if I didn't think he had an idée fixe. If he had said, "Okay, show me where I am wrong ... " then I would happily do the work to help him re-think his Marathon beliefs.

___________________

** Dean's disgusting comments about Jeff Baumann sneeringly suggest that this man in the famous photo is a conspirator, and we who disagree are all "sheep" ...

To that, I say

Eat My Fuck, Dean.

You wouldn't have the balls to confront this man with your claims.

Edited October 1, 2014 by william.scherk

[deanwins]

Ad hominem

[Brant Gaede]

William: I wrote a long paragraph--deleted, except: "grump, grump, grump".

--Brant

there's a reason I didn't join the volunteer ambulance service after Vietnam in spite of my EMT skills

[Jonathan]

Brant, if we are all non-expert in such things as crime-scene footage analysis, would this mean we should be agnostic about what we do see? Moreover, accepting that you, me, Ba'al, Mikee, Jonathan and Dean are non-expert, does this mean only that 'something happened'? Don't we get to investigate using the sharpest tools of reason?

Actually, I think that I pretty easily qualify as an expert on photographic analysis.

In the past, I've taken up many conspiracy nutters' claims, and technically refuted the photographic evidence that they were being guided to misinterpret. Everything from the JFK assassination, to faked moon landings, to 9-11, to Bin Laden impersonators. I've confronted these nutjobs, over and over again, with proof that their own statements about photographic evidence were measurably false, but they never back down. It's always a waste of time. No reality can get through to them.

Usually they're completely unfamiliar with photography. They don't, and won't, understand the different effects that can occur due to lighting or to a longer or shorter lens, etc. They don't grasp foreshortening, depth of field, or the potential illusions that can happen due to cameras having a single lens where we have binocular vision. They misinterpret distances, shadows, reflections, and even digital compression artifacts (they love to base their nutty opinions on low-resolution copies of copies of video evidence, rather than on full-resolution original footage, because then they can claim that compression artifacts are entities that were flying around in reality, that speeds of objects don't add up, etc).

They're usually total boneheads. A good recent example was the incident in which Tony Stewart accidentally ran over Kevin Ward on the racetrack. Adamantly moronic idiots who watched the footage were certain that they could hear Stewart gunning his engine immediately before and during his running over Ward. See, these retards had heard an engine rev on the video at that point in time, and, being the idiots that they are, they didn't bother to ask themselves if the sound might have come from cars right in front of the stands where the video was recorded rather than from way across the track where the accident occurred. They were convinced that the audio proved that Stewart ran over Ward on purpose. They were immune to evidence contained in the video that when the camera operator zoomed in on the other side of the track, the audio did not "zoom in" with it. They refused to believe that audio and video were two separate things. Willfully boneheaded.

Dean is being an even bigger bonehead/shitbag than those idiots.

Jonathan I hope you are right and I am wrong, very wrong. I hope Dean snaps out of his infatuation with nonsense.

I don't think that Dean will ever give up his infatuation with nonsense. In a few years, after he's had time to be exposed to rational thinking about this one issue, he'll probably start to get it right, but at the same time, he'll be spouting new batshit insanity about other topics. I think he's drawn to nonsense, and it takes him a long time to work through each individual issue, and during that time, he'll have several more nut job opinions on various subjects than rational ones. He doesn't seem to ever learn anything from having believed nonsense in the past. He kind of seems to treat his past self as a different person about whom he has no reason to feel embarrassment.

J

[Jonathan]

Ad hominem

No one is making ad hominem arguments, but identifying the irrational, illogical nature of your statements on the bombing. People here are discussing your loony shitbag ideas and behavior in addition to the content of your "arguments," not instead of it. Your post #21, for example, is laden with statements that are fallacious, arbitrary and stupid. It is not "ad hominem" for people to identify those statements as fallacious, arbitrary and stupid, or to identify you as behaving like a loony shitbag. So, don't try to pretend that saying "ad hominem" will somehow put your nutty ideas on the side of logic and your opponents' on the side of fallaciousness.

J

[Mikee]

Ad hominem

No one is making ad hominem arguments, but identifying the irrational, illogical nature of your statements on the bombing. People here are discussing your loony shitbag ideas and behavior in addition to the content of your "arguments," not instead of it. Your post #21, for example, is laden with statements that are fallacious, arbitrary and stupid. It is not "ad hominem" for people to identify those statements as fallacious, arbitrary and stupid, or to identify you as behaving like a loony shitbag. So, don't try to pretend that saying "ad hominem" will somehow put your nutty ideas on the side of logic and your opponents' on the side of fallaciousness.

J

And this pointless stupid rant is better than a ad hominem...how?

[Jonathan]

Ad hominem

No one is making ad hominem arguments, but identifying the irrational, illogical nature of your statements on the bombing. People here are discussing your loony shitbag ideas and behavior in addition to the content of your "arguments," not instead of it. Your post #21, for example, is laden with statements that are fallacious, arbitrary and stupid. It is not "ad hominem" for people to identify those statements as fallacious, arbitrary and stupid, or to identify you as behaving like a loony shitbag. So, don't try to pretend that saying "ad hominem" will somehow put your nutty ideas on the side of logic and your opponents' on the side of fallaciousness.

J

And this pointless stupid rant is better than a ad hominem...how?

Seriously?

You didn't get the point?!!!

J

[william.scherk]

I read the pre-deletion original comments, Brant, and they made sense to me. All is well. Forgive me for using you as a strike-pad for my incendiaries. Do we really have to argue about the reality of the Boston Bombing?

Maybe not. Maybe better to have let the irrational scenario sink due it its massive superstructure. Still, I felt personally disgusted at the upended victimology, at the contempt for the traumatized. It seemed mean and irrational and worth a most spirited reaction ....

I am now mostly just sad. Sad that Dean is where's he's at on this issue. Sad I can't help.

[Mikee]

Ad hominem

No one is making ad hominem arguments, but identifying the irrational, illogical nature of your statements on the bombing. People here are discussing your loony shitbag ideas and behavior in addition to the content of your "arguments," not instead of it. Your post #21, for example, is laden with statements that are fallacious, arbitrary and stupid. It is not "ad hominem" for people to identify those statements as fallacious, arbitrary and stupid, or to identify you as behaving like a loony shitbag. So, don't try to pretend that saying "ad hominem" will somehow put your nutty ideas on the side of logic and your opponents' on the side of fallaciousness.

J

And this pointless stupid rant is better than a ad hominem...how?

Seriously?

You didn't get the point?!!!

J

I think you are emotionally empty and get great satisfaction out of piling gratuitous insults onto people you think are vulnerable. Do you torture small animals as well? That's the point. Didn't you get it? I'll never understand how a person who can produce beautiful paintings can be so ugly inside. I guess that's an insult, but not a gratuitous one. You earned it bud.

[Selene]

Jonathan:

I would be interested in your expert opinion/analysis of:

1) the Abraham Zapruder film; and

2) film of Lee Harvey Oswald's assassination by Jack Ruby in the "transfer" operation.

If you wish to send it off list, that would be fine for me.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

It has not yet been established that anyone on this thread is "ugly inside."

--Brant

now ugly existential--that's another matter

[deanwins]

More on the question of human nature...

Historical fact that people can form groups where they develop strong bonds with eachother as being "in" the group. They then persecute others who are not in the group, having the mentality that those not in the group are not given any respect of property rights whatsoever, just playthings and tools. This goes from middle/high school bullies to fraternaty rivelry to...

wikipedia: Nazi human experimentation

Although I think the later EXTREME case generally only would occur when food is in low supply, in which case living people who are not in the in group are just more mouths to feed.

[Brant Gaede]

More on the question of human nature...

Historical fact that people can form groups where they develop strong bonds with eachother as being "in" the group. They then persecute others who are not in the group, having the mentality that those not in the group are not given any respect of property rights whatsoever, just playthings and tools. This goes from middle/high school bullies to fraternaty rivelry to...

wikipedia: Nazi human experimentation

Although I think the later EXTREME case generally only would occur when food is in low supply, in which case living people who are not in the in group are just more mouths to feed.

Unit 731 was even worse. Altogether the Japanese killed more Chinese in the years of war than Americans killed Japanese, including from the bombings of their cities.

Is all this just more "ad hominem"? Have your cake and eat it too?

--Brant

[deanwins]

Brant, The arguments that people don't have such monstrous character, and that horrific secrets could not conceivably be kept by large numbers of people were made. My above post was to prove otherwise.

[Selene]

Slip sliding away...

It's ok Dean, you won't feel a thing...

Just close your ciruits and relax...

A...

[Mikee]

Brant, The arguments that people don't have such monstrous character, and that horrific secrets could not conceivably be kept by large numbers of people were made. My above post was to prove otherwise.

Context. The conditions in WW II Germany were far different than in the United States in 2001, Germany endured the loss of WWI and much economic hardship and humiliation. The Jews were blamed for everything, even so the atrocities had to be covered up, most of the people didn't know what was going on. Many Germans risked their lives saving Jews, hiding Jews. The people in the world trade center were not some homogeneous ostracized group. I'm aware that some people can be inhuman sociopaths that get enjoyment from the suffering and pain and death of others. But they are they exception, not the rule. A large scale conspiracy like you're suggesting is just not possible. And the motive is money? They have complete control over all the money they see fit to print already. I would sooner you argue that the moon landings were faked.

[Brant Gaede]

Brant, The arguments that people don't have such monstrous character, and that horrific secrets could not conceivably be kept by large numbers of people were made. My above post was to prove otherwise.

Okay. I just didn't understand why you had actually made that post.

I certainly think those airplanes brought down the WTC, but I wonder what the Mossad knew before it happened.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

I think you are emotionally empty and get great satisfaction out of piling gratuitous insults onto people you think are vulnerable.

Vulnerable? I think that Dean is anything but. In this case, he seems to be immune to things like empathy and other normal human traits. Reread this thread. Dean is the one who is piling gratuitous insults on people who have lost lives and limbs. His behavior is what is "emotionally empty."

And you said "people." Plural. Who else, other than Vulnerable Dean, are you accusing me of gratuitously insulting while they are vulnerable?

Do you torture small animals as well?

Do you mean, do I kick people when they're down, like, say, when they're victims of a bombing? No, I don't. I do, however, stand up for such people, and I have no reservations whatsoever about confronting assholes who try to add to their burden.

Now, perhaps you're trying to say that you know something about Vulnerable Dean that I don't, such as that he's been having some personal problems in his private life or something? If so, I haven't been referring to anything like that, since I don't know about it. I've been referring only to his public behavior here, and specifically to the issues that he has chosen to discuss. In short, I'm not responding to him because I think he's weak and because I like to bully people, but because he is being a bully.

That's the point. Didn't you get it? I'll never understand how a person who can produce beautiful paintings can be so ugly inside.

You're misidentifying who is "ugly inside." Again, I suggest that you reread this thread. Read what your dear little Vulnerable Dean wrote about the bombing victims. That is what is ugly. My intolerance of that ugliness is due to the strength of my inner beauty. I think the same is true of Bill Scherk's also being disgusted by Vulnerable Dean's inner ugliness.

I guess that's an insult, but not a gratuitous one. You earned it bud.

I'm not your bud, pal.

J

[Jonathan]

Brant, The arguments that people don't have such monstrous character, and that horrific secrets could not conceivably be kept by large numbers of people were made. My above post was to prove otherwise.

Um, I wonder if you understand what's different about monstrous regimes of the past having kept certain horrific events secret versus the loony shit that you're preaching about contemporary American politicians. Do you realize that those monstrous regimes came into power via horrific use of force, and that their doing so wasn't secret? Do you realize that they openly threatened and viciously punished their political enemies and only hid certain activities? Do you understand that the horrific events that they were able to keep secret were carried out behind closed doors, and not in public?

Are you able to comprehend the relevance of these differences?

J

[Selene]

Hey...Deano...

Jerry here and have I got a great conspiracy for you to attach yourself to, however I am not sure wetheer you do cross racial conspiracies or not, you being white and easily intimidated because, well, you know...

The U.S. government’s desire for world depopulation

In a national security memo dated April 24, 1974 titled, “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for the United States Security and Overseas Interest,” Henry Kissinger, the Secretary of State under George Herbert Walker Bush, wrote: “Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the Third World.” Depopulation—to depopulate something means: “To ravage, to ruin, to reduce the population of, especially by violence, disease, etc.” Mr. Kissinger continued, “The United States economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries”—this means they are going to destroy the population of mainly Third World countries.

The policy paper titled, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” is the “white paper” of the neoconservatives in their Project for a New American Century. On page 60 it states: “The art of warfare will be vastly different than it is today. Combat likely will take place in

new dimensions. Advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes, may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”