Flagging the False Flags

[Mark]

Yet another false flag operation, the Oklahoma City bombing. Was Timothy McVeigh a patsy, or as Fred Burks suggests, a Manchurian candidate?

You can always spot a government coverup. Tapes are erased, stories change, black boxes disappear, films are confiscated, and on and on.....

Oklahoma City bombing tapes erased

So the truck bomb alone couldn't have done it and there were other explosives planted in the building that apparently didn't go off. I guess the Murrah Building bombing wasn't as well thought out as Operation Northwoods. There wasn't enough evidence pointing to foreign terrorists to justify a war. Of course there wasn't with 9/11 either. Some blurry photos at the wrong airport, a miraculously unsinged passport, some supposedly fanatical Moslems who were drinking and womanizing, names of alleged hijackers who turned out to be still alive, no black boxes from the planes at the WTC, all the film confiscated at the Pentagon, and on and on.....

[pan]

I made no conclusions about those statistics - if I had made a conclusion that inferred something about fecundity and race (rather than including a much large discussion about poverty, industrialization, religious affiliation, etc. as more important factors in birth rates) then maybe your labeling it as racism would have merit. I merely referred to them as they seemed appropriate to the discussion you and BO were having.

Choosing to ignore "inconvenient" facts because some may choose to use those facts to support their bigotry is not being reality based.

Labeling an awareness of those statistics as racism is ad hominem rhetoric.

[Mark]

Pan, you labelled your topic, "Overpopulation AND Overconsumption," but you only addressed what you call overpopulation. You made no mention of overconsumption whatsoever. And what you call overpopulation is the birth rates of darker-skinned people without regard to consumption.

It's like me hiring you to do a job and saying you will do the work AND you will be compensated for it, but after you do the work, I don't pay you. Your "AND" was misleading bullshit. The SOLE purpose of your topic was to cite the birth rates of darker-skinned people, and that's racism. Had you given even a token mention to consumption patterns, or mentioned the birth rates of lower class whites in the U.S., which is the equivalent of the birth rates in China or India, you wouldn't be guilty of racism.

An honest heading for your topic would have been, "Birth Rates of Darker-Skinned People," as that was the ONLY thing you addressed.

[pan]

Perhaps you should go to the discussion labeled Overpopulation AND Overconsumption to discuss that fred.

I highly recommend you read the article I linked as it deals directly with overconsumption.

Curious that your analogy was based in a capitalist model of employer-employee relations.....

And, an honest assessment of my posts would have noted that I noted the lowest birth rates in Japan and Hong Kong. Or that I noted that in America non-hispanic Whites have a higher birth rate than American Indians and Native Alaskans.

I am happy to discuss issues. Please try to discuss issues and avoid the temptation to resort to ad hominem attacks.

[Mark]

Okay, I'll go to your thread. I want to ask you what, if anything, you think that birth rates have to do with overpopulation OR overconsumption.

[curt]

Ralph Kolstad of Pilots for 911Truth_on Fair & Balanced
By noliesradio
This show was broadcast September 29, 2009.
It is now archived here

Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad of Pilots for 9/11 Truth will discuss the brand-new, long-awaited Pilots for 9/11 Truth DVD 9/11: World Trade Center Attack. Were the planes that hit the World Trade Center really two passenger 767s, namely AA 11 and UA 175? Tune in to find out what the latest data says. Ralph has 23,000 hours flight time, 27 years in the airlines, B757/767 for 13 years mostly as international captain, 20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, participated in TopGun twice, is also a civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds.

[Mark]

As it turns out, the "population bomb" really did belong in this topic, as it was a false flag operation. It's dual purpose was to frighten people so that they would support wars, while scapegoating poor, dark-skinned people because that's who the wars were intended to kill.

Overpopulation is a real and serious problem, but as long as you're willing to tolerate the deaths of a few million or a few billion poor, dark-skinned people every time we hit a population peak, it isn't the end of the world. Global warming due to industrial pollution, on the other hand, is changing our planet so drastically that it may soon no longer be habitable. But those most responsible for global warming don't want to change their lifestyles, so it suits their purposes, as George Monbiot points out in his recent refutation of nuclear advocate James Lovelock, to shift public attention away from themselves and onto those least responsible for the problem, people who happen to be poor and dark-skinned.

If the problem is a clear and immediate danger to the planet from pollution, the solution is not to kill lots of people who don't pollute. In that sense, the "overpopulation bomb" is every bit as much a false flag operation as 9/11. Billions of people all over the world have come to understand that we are living in the "Age of Stupid," and have been trying to reduce their footprint and live more like poor, dark-skinned peoples. As, "No Impact Man" shows, it isn't easy, but it can be done and the pay-off is huge. We might have to sacrifice a lot of crap, but we'd get to keep the planet and it happens to be a very nice one. Or it was until the greedy folks started fucking with it.

Unfortunately, very few of those doing the most damage, are willing to admit their own stupidity. Imagine somebody whose life expectancy is no more than a hundred years, producing tons and tons of highly toxic radioactive wastes with half lives of tens or hundreds of THOUSANDS of years, without knowing how to safely dispose of those wastes, and not caring if anyone ever figures it out or not. Since we've had decades to work on this problem, which all the leading scientists of fifty years ago agreed would be solved by now, it may not be an easy problem--certainly not one that can be solved by irresponsible idiots who got their scientific credentials the same way that Michael Moore in his new film, "Capitalism: A Love Story," explains that our finance czars got their powerful positions: not by being qualified, but by being willing to give the rich and powerful the answers they wanted without regard to the truth.

Okay, so we understand the problem. Does talking about it, writing about it, making movies about it, and trying to develop new frames, paradigms, and memes to spread that knowledge help? Not really. Those who are doing the most damage to the planet aren't going to listen.

The internet has its perils but it is a relatively safe space compared to the real world. The defenders of the status quo who would beat, torture, or kill me in real life, can do no more than verbally attack me, censor me, or ban me online. But even online I can see the videos of those defenders and their paid enforcement troops, beating, torturing, and killing people who challenge their beliefs on the streets. The purpose of a false flag operation is to blame an intended victim for something so as to gain public support for the pre-planned victimization. In other words, first the decision is made to kill people and then a false flag operation is devised to blame the victims for something they didn't do but which will cause the public, if they can be fooling into believing the lie, to want to see those victims killed.

In the case of global warming, it is no longer just a few million or billion people who will be killed. The wealthy have decided to destroy the entire planet, themselves included, so that they can enjoy previously unheard of creature comforts and unimaginable wealth before we all die. They really do believe that, "he who dies with the most toys wins," and for them winning is everything. That's a hard plan to get public support for, but they have trillions of dollars to use for advertising, public relations, psychological warfare operations, and whatever else may be necessary to accomplish their goal.

My personal hypocrisy is in continuing to fight for the truth which would allow life on earth to continue, but with the same overpopulation/die-off cycles that have caused so much needless agony and suffering to so many billions of people over the last few thousand years. The crimes of humanity are so great and the perpetrators so arrogant, that there is no way to communicate with them. Unapprehended, they continue their crimes. Apprehended, they blow themselves up and take everybody they can with them. No reconciliation is possible. They are not insane. They know the difference between right and wrong and they prefer wrong. I cling to any signs of intelligent life on earth that I can find like the Zapatistas and everyone else who is fighting corporate rule. But giving the planet more time is no different from giving war criminals more time--every moment they get will be used to perpetrate more needless agony and suffering. So even as I fight for the truth, I simultaneously want it to be over quickly.

Like most people, I want to have friends, to laugh, to enjoy life, to make other people happy, to alleviate suffering, and to try to leave the world a better place than I found it. But we're the majority, not the world's rulers. We're the sheeple, not the wolves. We cannot win because we don't want to win--we just want to get along. The powerful are powerful because they want to win. And maybe they will. They have the nuclear toys to do it and if they feel threatened, feel that some miraculous mass movement might interfere with their profitable genocides, I don't doubt that they'll blow up the planet. Slowly, through global warming, or quickly through nuclear holocaust, they will complete the destruction they believe makes them so superior to us losers. For them there are always only two choices, black or white, rich or poor, winner or loser, predator or prey, the greater evil or the lesser evil. They've never been outside the system, the matrix if you prefer, so they can only see what they know to be true. There is no hundredth monkey, no butterfly in Brazil, no magic meme, just a blue pill and a red pill, and the "better dead than red" folks ain't dead yet.

Industrial society made it easy for a very small percentage of the world's population to stay warm, dry, hydrated, fed, clean and happy, by killing off billions of people who didn't want to be industrialized and forcing billions more into slavery and hopeless poverty. That was the price. That's reality. Can we stay warm, dry, hydrated, fed, clean and happy without industrial society? No. Without it, sometimes we'd be cold, wet, thirsty, hungry, and dirty. But our ancestors survived it and we've got their genes, so we could also. But would we be happy?

The Sufi, Hazrat Inayat Khan wrote:

"Will humanity ever return to simple living? Life is intoxication; and the more intoxicating it is, the more it proceeds from simplicity to complexity. It is the nature of life's intoxication to lead man from simplicity to complexity, and man chooses complexity for himself. When he finds himself surrounded by complexity, he thinks that he is caught in it, and then it is very difficult for him to get out of it.

The sages of India give a very beautiful example of this. They say life is like a spider's web. The spider weaves a web, making it more and more complex, weaving and weaving until it is completed. But when the web is finished, then the spider itself is caught in the web and cannot free itself. Its motive was to live there and to catch all the insects that might stray into it. But in the end, the spider does not see its desire fulfilled; the spider itself becomes a captive in its own web. And so it is with the ideal of man on earth. He perseveres and tries to make it as complex as possible for himself, and then enjoys the complexity. He sees it as an improvement, as something wonderful, and he becomes more and more interested in it. But what is the end? One day he is checked by something, and then he begins to feel that if he had been without all this complexity it would have been a thousand times better."

Checked by something? Reality, maybe? ;)

[pan]

The defenders of the status quo who would beat, torture, or kill me in real life, can do no more than verbally attack me, censor me, or ban me online

Hyperbole much there Mark?

Disagreeing with you is not an "attack". And it hardly qualifies as the equivalent of beating, torture or murder.

I'm thinking that you take this internet thing way too seriously and, in spite of your best intentions, really have doubts that you will be able to limit yourself to just free library use when your present computer expires - they have limits on the amount of time you spend on their equipment.

And, though I admit to fucking with you, there is nothing I posted that I did not believe was true. While Overconsumption is the primary concern, Population is part of the problem. And admitting that is not supporting racist wars against brown peoples.

More in keeping with the topic of false flags - why is it that the U.S. supports the Zionist expansion and ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the West Bank? What resources are provided by Israel for fat white American (men) to gorge themselves upon? Why does the US support an ongoing war of aggression there?

[pan]

Perhaps Mark, the reason why you have been banned on so many sites might have something to do with your tendency to see them as people who would beat, torture, or kill me in real life.

[Mark]

The survivalist movement actually exists, Pan. They stockpile guns because they know that after the collapse, hordes of poor people will try to steal their hoards of food. There is also an organic urban gardening movement where poor people are trying to grow their own food, but corporations don't like to see peasants growing their own food here anymore than they like to see it in Latin America or Africa. They prefer dead peasants. In order to force people to become slaves or wage-slaves or cannon fodder, you have to cut them off from their food supply.

I got this computer about eight years ago. Before that I lived aboard a small sailboat at a mooring. To get to a computer, I had to row ashore, drag the dinghy onto the beach, lock it up, walk about ten minutes to the bus stop, wait for a bus, ride fifteen minutes to an hour to a library where I could only use a computer for an hour, and then either take the bus to a different library or go home. I did that for twelve years. Before that I had a small apartment for a few years and was addicted to being online--stayed online all day every day. Now I'm a block from a library that lets people schedule an hour a day online but also has laptops that people can use inside the library for as long as they wish. One of the reasons that I survived being homeless for many years was that I'm very adaptable.

Population has nothing to do with overconsumption. The people who have the highest birth rates are those who contribute the least to global warming. For a westerner who consumes and pollutes as much as ten thousand poor people, and actually needs to have poor people killed in order to supply their consumer "needs" (oil, minerals, food), to blame people who do not pollute, is racism.

Afghanistan is a poor, Islamic country. A friend of mine in Jalalabad was the son of a wealthy mullah. But they lived no differently than anyone else. They gave food to their neighbors who couldn't afford to buy food because that was their obligation. Instead of hoarding or investing their money, or using it to live more luxuriously than their neighbors, they lived simply and shared the excess. Nobody would have respected them if they hadn't. Afghanistan didn't do anything to us. Afghanistan never attacked us. We didn't invade them because we wanted their superior lifestyles. We invaded so that we could run an oil pipeline through there. We're killing brown people who don't contribute to global warming, so that we can contribute to global warming. Same thing in Iraq and the DRCongo.

The U.S. supports Israel because the U.S. wants to control Middle East oil.

In his book, Since Predator Came, Ward Churchill wrote (the President was Bush senior):

"The President has said--'read my lips'--unequivocally that international laws 'must be enforced. And they will be enforced. Period.' This is certainly commendable, and something we should all be prepared to insist upon vociferously. Now that Iraq has been compelled to comply with 'all relevant U.N. resolutions' by being battered into near oblivion through an unprecedented application of high-tech 'defensive weaponry,' we progressives should demand that everyone who supported the Gult War join us in calling for redeployment of the 'force levels' evident in 'Operation Desert Storm' to insure that certain other, much longer standing, U.N. resolutions are honored. Let's start, say, with Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. This Israeli conduct has been, after all, the focus of more than a few U.N. condemnations over the years, as has Israel's occupation of the southern portion of Lebanon. For that matter, there has long been a U.N. resolution equating zionism with racism, thereby rendering the ideology of the Israeli state illegal under the U.N. Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

For consistency's sake, there must be a U.S. ultimatum, comparable to that delivered to Iraq, ordering the Israelis to unassimilate the occupied territory immediately. If there is no compliance, it must be made plain, Tel Aviv will be flattened by massive air strikes, while every military installation in the country will be 'surgically eliminated.' In the event that Israel does begin an instantaneous withdrawal from Palestine and Lebanon, we should urge George to be somewhat more 'magnanimous' in other respects. The people of Israel could, for instance, be given as long as six months to overthrow Yitzak Shamir and his colleagues, dissolve the totality of their state bureaucracy, and reconstitute their polity on the basis of a non-zionist model. In the event they fail to accomplish this latter U.N. requirement, a U.S. suspension of aid and orchestration of comprehensive international sanctions should probably be sufficient to bring them around in a couple of weeks."
------------------------------------

That's some hilarious writing there. It could have been a George Carlin stand-up routine.

As long as you stand with them in defending the status quo, Pan, the defenders of the status quo won't beat, torture, or kill you. If you oppose the status quo online, or in books and magazines, you probably won't be beaten, tortured, or killed. But go out and protest the status quo on the streets, and then talk about hyperbole.

Straight white males feel relatively secure in the United States. They can't be stopped, searched, and beaten for "driving while black." They can go to bars and theaters in the evening without worrying about being attacked for being outdoors after dark while gay or female. You've probably participated in "Take Back the Night" marches yourself. Are they hyperbole?

I took a lot of beatings before the advent of the internet. I never won a single argument. When I'd say something that somebody didn't like, but that was true and that they couldn't argue with, they'd use physical violence. It was a revelation to me when I started posting online that when I'd say something that was true and that the defenders of the status quo couldn't argue with, they couldn't hit me. They could, and did, gang up on me and attack me, censor me, and ban me, but they couldn't hit me.

Now the part about torture and killing may seem to be hyperbole, as I wasn't tortured or killed. But if you want to argue that the defenders of the status quo haven't tortured and killed people, and won't do so whenever that's what it takes to defend the status quo, go right ahead. A large portion of my email comes from organizations that support people who have been tortured and the families of people who have been killed by the defenders of the status quo, and I'm sure I'll have plenty of same day dated press releases to refute any such arguments.

If you define "the problem" as too many poor brown people sitting on resources that the U.S. needs in order to maintain its extravagant consumer lifestyle, i.e., the status quo, then overpopulation is part of the problem. If you define the problem as nonbiodegradable pollutants irreparably destroying the planet, then overpopulation is not part of the problem. Those who have the most destructive lifestyles, have the lowest populations. 5% of the world is using more than 50% of the world's resources. Half the global population right now lives on $2.50 a day or less. How many cars, computers, cell phones, iPods, and plastic products can they buy? How many chemical industries and nuclear power plants do they own? A full half of the U.S. contribution to global warming comes from our military. We have more than 800 military bases overseas, each with cars, tanks, planes, and a pristine golf course. We need to fly their food and personnel in and out. They're not there to defend us. They're there, as General Smedley Butler explained in 1933, to enable U.S. corporations to steal the resources of foreign countries. To defend the status quo where 5% of the earth's population consumes 50% of its resources.

Curt has been with me over the years on many sites from which I've been banned. C-boy on COTO insists that I deserved to have been banned from OEN because I was hostile and disrespectful, but that he didn't deserve to have been banned even though he was a hell of a lot more hostile and disrespectful than I ever was. I called somebody "kid," not "cunt." Double standard, maybe just a little? Or hyperbole?

I've been banned from many sites for referring to people the same way that they referred to me. In each case we'd been on equal terms for a long time and then, having learned something about me that shouldn't have changed anything, they decided to refer to me in terms that they themselves consider to be fighting words. Sure, they'll lie about it, but in real life if anyone referred to them that way without their express permission, they would respond with physical violence. Online, they responded by banning me. All I'd done was commit the cardinal sin of referring to them the same way that they referred to me.

Institutionalized discrimination is usually invisible. Many blacks who made institutionalised racism visible by demanding equal terms and treatment, were lynched for being "uppity." Just having the audacity to say, "Don't call me boy--I'm a man," in the old south was enough to get a black person killed for being uppity. White males defended calling adult black males "boy" by saying that it was traditional, that they were adhering to community standards, that the blacks they knew preferred it, that it was meant as an endearment, etc., but until the civil rights movement came along, black males who took offense at being called "boy," continued to be beaten and lynched for being uppity. White cops still do it all over the United States as a deliberate provocation so that they can label any response "resisting arrest."

Disagreeing with me is not an attack. Calling me names is. If I post something and somebody responds by saying, "I disagree. Here's why," and goes on to explain why they disagree, that's a productive discussion. If they respond by saying, "You're crazy. You're in need of care," that's an attack. If I post something and somebody responds by saying, "That isn't true. The truth is...." and goes on to outline the basis for their argument, that's not an attack. That's a productive discussion. If they respond by saying, "You're a liar," that's an attack. Criticism of my arguments or my position supported by reasoned argumentation is not an attack. Criticism of me or my writing style is.

Writing that attempts to develop new frames, paradigms, or memes to make institutionalized racism, sexism, or consumerism more visible and thereby encourage positive social change, has, at least in my opinion, social value. Known facts, when looked at in the same way they've always been looked at, do not bring about change. Those same known facts, when made visible by looking at them in different ways, can help bring about change. Saying, "Sure there's racism and sexism. We all know that. So what?" does not help bring about change. Saying, "This is a specific aspect of the status quo that many people take for granted. Here is why it is rooted in sexism or racism," can help people see it in a new way, think about it differently, and perhaps even act differently as a consequence. You are welcome to disagree if you can do so without resorting to personal attacks.

[BO]

"Overconsumption is the primary concern, Population is part of the problem."

Actually, consumption and population are inseparable variables when defining carrying capacity. One fat paternalistic white guy could live quite comfortably on the planet without ever over-burdening his habitat.

"What resources are provided by Israel for fat white American (men) to gorge themselves upon?"

Jewish Bankers?

[waldopaper]

"Does talking about it, writing about it, making movies about it, and trying to develop new frames, paradigms, and memes to spread that knowledge help? Not really."

YES REALLY. How do you think the fatties stay where they are? "...they have trillions of dollars to use for advertising, public relations, psychological warfare operations, and whatever else may be necessary to accomplish their goal." Constant and relentless selection-pressure is necessary to develop the super-antidote memes. The fats don't kill anybody. They have armies of zombified goons to do it for them. It's the ads, PR and psyops that keep the goons zombified.

The fatties don't have to listen. They only have to die. Once there are enough women in any counter-meme (like "9-11 Truth") the fatties are toast.

[Mark]

TELL IT, Waldo.

In his "let's fuck with Mark" topic, Pan wrote:

I agree with you that the Western - or should I say Latter Capitalist - lifestyle is not sustainable (that is as obvious to anyone with a passing acquaintance to reality as the idea that we need air to breathe) and is having devastating effects that are possibly irreversible in the near future. That has never been an issue here.

You keep telling us that the world is round and we say "yes, and...."

Actually, what I keep saying is that our lifestyle is not sustainable, to which BO and Pan say, "Yes, we know that. So shut up about it already. It isn't sustainable AND we don't give a fuck because we've better things to talk about, like how to get rid of a bunch of poor, brown-skinned people so that we can sustain our comfortable lifestyle for at least a little bit longer."

Remember when Pan criticized a book that he hadn't read? Did you notice when BO accused me or Monbiot of relying on Lovelock when, if he'd looked at the essay I'd linked and quoted from, he'd have seen that it was a refutation of Lovelock?

Some people don't read, don't think, and prefer to attack. But I agree with you, Waldo. They don't have to listen, read, or think. All they have to do is die. A bit harsh, perhaps, but its them or the planet.

We need to counter the constant and relentless pressure to maintain the status quo. We need to counter the disinfo psyops. Even here. The enemy isn't somebody else. Monbiot characterized environmentalism as a war against ourselves. The enemy, as always, is us. Our consumer lifestyle has to die so that the world can live. No "ifs," "ands," or "buts" about it. The difference between Mr. Creosote and me, is no greater than the difference between me and the half the world living on less than $2.50 a day. My fight is with the Creosotes, the mini-Creosotes, and the Creosote-in-me. Anyone trying to shift the blame to the victims pisses me off. Even if they don't know that's what they're doing and just believed the PR campaigns.