The Next Level

[Phil Howe]

[moylan]

Well thanks for your concern Phil, but your guesses into what motivates my post aren't very interesting. Yours is a typical intelligence ploy: attack ad hominem, attribute motives, destroy at all costs. I've noticed this tendency of yours before. Frankly, I don't share the same adoration of the rich or aspiration to be wealthy that seems to drive your own attack.

The point is not, contrary to your misrepresentation, that rich=evil. . The point is that these people subscribe to a shared value system. That value system tends to seek its own interests above all else. Not all that complicated, I would have thought. But clearly free invention can turn this into something else.

[Rumpl4skn]

[Phil Howe]

[moylan]

Well if using bad logic is healthy, I obviously went to the wrong school

There's nothing wrong with being rich (hey- you made an argument!) but a lot wrong with how it's done these days. And how it's done these days is pretty much the only way it can be done. That's my problem with philanthropic rich folk. Is that well articulated enough for you?

Yes, here we have a free paper too called "Metro", and it's produced by the British embassy. And when stories start appearing about how 9-11 was a plot carried out by helter-skelter and whoever, one has to start asking questions.

The only Dublin radio station to have mentioned the possibility that 9-11 was "an inside job", or whatever the popular parlance is among 9-11 truth types, was Newstalk 106. And guess who was there to spread the word? Our good friend Alex Jones, spreading his usual disinfo about how Condy knew and Rummy knew and there was a simulation of a terrorist attack involving the hijack of planes that very day, etc. The next time he was on (yes, there was a next time), he was spinning a yarn about how the Pope (previous or present, I forget which) was a member of the Masons. The desired effect was produced: serious questioning of the propaganda line = Alex-Jones- style lunacy.

[Rumpl4skn]

[moylan]

The reaction is predictable. Jump on one fact, distort its significance, and mix in a healthy dose of conjecture.

It's what Jones does: play the part of the 9-11 lunatic, running about with a microphone, ranting and raving about illuminati and secret societies in between offering tantalising glimpses of the conspiracy that you wish were true, so that your place as dissatisfied cog can be vindicated.

[Rumpl4skn]

[Jerry Fletcher]

[Rumpl4skn]

[moylan]

Let me give my opinion on the "secret society" issue, and what I think Fintan is trying to say about Jones and others whom he has fingered as CIA fakes.

One danger is to allow the issue to concentrate around mystical cabals trying to take over the world because they share a fanatical conviction that certain numbers have cosmic significance. Anything that distracts us from the point that geo-politics is what is driving the actions of the G8 (by which I mean the political and intelligence elites of the Western powers) is intended as such. What is required in this discussion is both an analysis of both the actual pattern of events and their significance, and of their setting in a historical context. What is to be observed is a pattern of long-term planning, in which the major players may have changed their relationships to each other, but not their identities and aims.

So the secret societies issue is interesting, in that it enables us to glimpse some of the shared interests of those involved. For example, we see the WTO's Peter Sutherland and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson are both Bilderbergers. But these societies are subordinate to state interests: we are not talking about well-intentioned policies being "sabotaged" by the machinations of secret influences, but the manifestation in state policy of these interests.

Thus what assumes importance in detecting who is genuine on the matter of 9-11, 7-7 and other Psy-ops - I knew 9-11 was a Psy-op on the day it happened-
is the study of propaganda. The reason that Jones and others have been fingered as CIA fakes is not that it is being asserted they are consciously working for the CIA and that some proof could be obtained for this (which is Phil Howe's demand), but that they employ propaganda techniques. Propaganda is not about lying - no one is going to credit lies for long enough, not when important objectives are at stake. It is about constructing a picture that has enough plausibility to be accepted at face value: enough facts are seeded among the disinformation so that it passes muster on a superficial examination. But the overall picture is misleading, skewing perceptions and misdirecting analysis.

I've said enough about Jones to make the point; once you see what he's at, he can be ignored. Let me say that I'm not representing myself as above being fooled: knowing, intuitively, that 9-11 was staged, that skyscrapers just don't collapse like that, I was drawn first of all to quite a good article (not Fintan's), which admittedly raised more questions than it answered about the events, but was an honest attempt to address the official story. Then I was sidetracked into the Webfairy stuff and Alex Jones (on foot of the Newstalk broadcast I mentioned), until certain things stopped making sense. Why, for instance, did he keep going on about prison camps and totalitarianism, when the success of the American dream (pleasant though it is, it's just a dream), was that it offered the appearance of free speech and freedom, just as long as those things stayed away from upsetting the two-party consensus and the corporate-politicial system? Even George Bush knows better than that. Then I understood: Alex Jones is given such prominence because he's a fall guy, the jester of the 9-11 movement, who's being set up to take a tumble and discredit the whole thing, should a crisis develop and that particular backup plan need to be triggered.

I don't advocate taking what Fintan says at face value. What is important is to think for oneself, to free oneself from the human tendency to turn to leaders. The figures that Fintan has named are precisely that: leaders, like Kennedy, Al Gore, Martin Luther King, Ed Kennedy, who are built up as the great hope embodying all the hopes and expectations of those who are appalled by the stage villains in government. And then they are disposed of, and with them all those hopes and dreams, all opposition crushed and demoralised. If the opposition had developed its own independent analysis, subjecting this analysis to scrutiny at every turn, it would be harder to beat. Which is why, everywhere we turn, there are figureheads like Micheal Moore (see the neat little trick they played with Moore?), Ruppert, Sybil Edmonds, Jones, etc etc, defusing the need to think for oneself, offering comforting confirmations of what one has been conditioned through popular culture to expect (remember The X-Files?).

That, of course, is what the entertainment industry is: a lab for the development of newer, more effective Psy-op weapons. Cultural forms are designed, whether consciously or not, to confirm what one's conditioning has left one to expect. For fifty years, the US intelligence agencies have been revising the script, assessing the reactions of preview audiences, auditioning thousands of parts for the phenomenon that has taken America and the world by storm: "9-11: The Movie".

Sorry if I've rambled a bit.

[Rumpl4skn]

I enjoy rambling as long as I'm following it, it's in English and it's making sense. You're 3 for 3 in that one.

Everything you said seems plausible. However, I get the feeling you guys are directing these attitudes towards people who need to see 9/11 Truth icons in black or white. I don't visit the Alex Jones site and dive into the flouride and "the gov't is deliberately poisoning our fetuses with gamma rays" stuff. (Okay, I made that one up.) But he says some whacky stuff, and I ignore it. Likewise, ten-fold with David Icke.

The only turn off here to me is the somewhat self-righteous attitude I seem to be perceiving (did I dance around that carefully enough for ya?) Kind of like, "Excuse me, but you're not being successful in what I hope is an attempt to not stand on my toe there, sir."

Let me ask you this - has it occurred to any of you here that maybe some of the craziness people like Icke and Jones espouse in their ramblings is simply a way to keep the bulls-eye off their skulls? A way to get 90% of their message across, yet appear just loony enough that they can be brushed aside by anyone who'd otherwise view them as "removable"?

I admire the balls of people like Fintan, who pulls no punches and tells it exactly as he sees it. But he certainly can be perceived as a dangerous man to some entities in the world's governments.

I don't need to be spoon-fed my propaganda, whether genuine or fake. I can decide what I think is useable and what is not, that's all. Along with that, I simply don't agree that the time is right for squabbling about details and who's got it 99% right - this information has to start coming out, in any form, and we can deal with the depth to which it's been revealed once people begin to accept the mere possibility. I believe you guys are outside the States, correct? I get the feeling you are unaware of just how little the Truth Movement is even noticed over here. I doubt there's 1% of the populace that's even aware that there is anything wrong with the government's story. Almost every week there is a Discovery Channel (I call it the Dis-Info-Covery Channel) special on how the towers burned to the ground, or made of for TV movie about Flight 93, or Larry King tonight is doing some of his shill horseshit, etc. It's WAY below the radar. We need momentum, and to me, arguing about who has 100% of their facts straight is just an unintentional delay tactic.

Anyway, thanks for the rant, it was great. I'm keeping that one for reference.
_________________

There's no place like 127.0.0.1.

[Jerry Fletcher]

[Ozregeneration]

[Rumpl4skn]