Even at 70, George Carlin could kick Bill Maher's ass. (Thanks to Baz.)
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
GEO KARRAS: A PSALM FOR SATANICA
This is a tough video to watch, but well worth your time and attention.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
CURRENT EVENTS "GARAGE SALE" ON VYZYGOTH!
This past Friday, Vyz and I recorded a "From the Grassy Knoll" program on current events which is now available for download HERE. In it we discuss Ahnold's gender confusion, why prison censors won't pass what they don't understand, and how to distract good people from what's really happening by hitting them where it counts. This is no time to hide under the bed!Saturday, October 20, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
NIST IMPLICITLY ADMITS WTC TOWERS CONTROLLED DEMO by Kevin Barrett
We respectfully dedicate this post to the individual who so staunchly defended the NIST report at our presentation on September 24.
NIST IMPLICITLY ADMITS: WTC TOWERS DESTROYED IN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
By Kevin Barrett
http://www.mujca.com
[Note: I will be speaking with Kevin Ryan, a leading expert on the NIST cover-up, at the Peoria Public Library at 2 pm this Saturday, 10/20/07, 107 N.E. Monroe St., Peoria, IL 61602]
Re: http://www.911blogger.com/node/12002
In an amazing about-face, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) has implicitly admitted that its 10,000-page report on the destruction of the Twin Towers is a fraud, and that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.
In its recent reply to family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, scientists Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, NIST states: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
Thus NIST euphemistically admits that its 10,000-page report on the Towers does not even pretend to provide any explanation whatsoever for the Towers' total collapse--and that indeed no such explanation is possible without invoking the politically-incorrect idea of controlled demolition.
NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support. In order to dream up this exceedingly unlikely scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors.
But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same time--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air.
Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon.
Compare this to a hypothetical case in which forensic evidence proves a victim was shot in the head three times at the foot of a cliff, but the body was found at the top of the cliff. The sheriff, who has the most to gain from the man's death, brings in NIST to explain how the man shot himself in the head three times and then fell upward 200 feet to land on the top of the cliff. NIST produces a 10,000-page report claiming to explain the event. The 10,000-page report ignores all the forensic evidence that the man was murdered, offering endless pages of scientific gobbledygook distorting all the forensic evidence in such a way as to show how a suicide actually could manage to squeeze off three head-shots, and offering a scenario explaining how "upward-fall initiation" took place.
After we read the whole 10,000 pages, it turns out that "upward-fall initiation" simply means that the man lost his footing after being shot. Okay, say Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan and friends, then after he lost his footing, how did he fall upward? NIST responds: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of falling-upward."
It is not surprising that NIST cannot explain a scenario that blatantly violates the basic laws of physics. What is surprising is that every newspaper in the world is not printing screaming front-page headlines reading NIST IMPLICITLY ADMITS: WTC TOWERS DESTROYED IN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
NIST IMPLICITLY ADMITS: WTC TOWERS DESTROYED IN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
By Kevin Barrett
http://www.mujca.com
[Note: I will be speaking with Kevin Ryan, a leading expert on the NIST cover-up, at the Peoria Public Library at 2 pm this Saturday, 10/20/07, 107 N.E. Monroe St., Peoria, IL 61602]
Re: http://www.911blogger.com/node/12002
In an amazing about-face, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) has implicitly admitted that its 10,000-page report on the destruction of the Twin Towers is a fraud, and that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.
In its recent reply to family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, scientists Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, NIST states: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
Thus NIST euphemistically admits that its 10,000-page report on the Towers does not even pretend to provide any explanation whatsoever for the Towers' total collapse--and that indeed no such explanation is possible without invoking the politically-incorrect idea of controlled demolition.
NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support. In order to dream up this exceedingly unlikely scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors.
But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same time--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air.
Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon.
Compare this to a hypothetical case in which forensic evidence proves a victim was shot in the head three times at the foot of a cliff, but the body was found at the top of the cliff. The sheriff, who has the most to gain from the man's death, brings in NIST to explain how the man shot himself in the head three times and then fell upward 200 feet to land on the top of the cliff. NIST produces a 10,000-page report claiming to explain the event. The 10,000-page report ignores all the forensic evidence that the man was murdered, offering endless pages of scientific gobbledygook distorting all the forensic evidence in such a way as to show how a suicide actually could manage to squeeze off three head-shots, and offering a scenario explaining how "upward-fall initiation" took place.
After we read the whole 10,000 pages, it turns out that "upward-fall initiation" simply means that the man lost his footing after being shot. Okay, say Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan and friends, then after he lost his footing, how did he fall upward? NIST responds: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of falling-upward."
It is not surprising that NIST cannot explain a scenario that blatantly violates the basic laws of physics. What is surprising is that every newspaper in the world is not printing screaming front-page headlines reading NIST IMPLICITLY ADMITS: WTC TOWERS DESTROYED IN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
Monday, October 08, 2007
UTICANS ON VYZYGOTH THIS WEEK
Last week, Herb and I recorded a two-hour program for Vyzygoth's "From the Grassy Knoll" that is now available for download HERE. We discuss the presentation on Sept. 24, the "boycott," and anomalies within the Movement including the curious battle between Webster Tarpley and a gaggle of pseudonyms.
"CLEAN UP IN AISLE (WTC) SEVEN!"
Not that I'd refer Wal-Mart shoppers to Alex Jones, but I like this guy's cleverness.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
UTICANS PRESENTATION AUDIO!!
On Monday night I recorded Herb's presentation and the discussion afterward. Download this "boycott bait" HERE.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
THE UTICANS INSPIRE A BOYCOTT!!
Just when you thought life couldn't get any sweeter, we inspire this thread.
The opening salvo:
Subject: BOYCOTT CAFE DOMENICO FOR HOSTING "UTICANS FOR 9/11 TRUTH"
The opening salvo:
Subject: BOYCOTT CAFE DOMENICO FOR HOSTING "UTICANS FOR 9/11 TRUTH"
Well they have finally done it. The crew at Cafe Domenico and their far left thinking have finally created so uncomfortable an environment for normal thinking folk that I cannot and will not continue to give them my business. On September 24, 2007 at 7:00 PM they are hosting "Herb Smith' (whoever he is...most likely 100% without legitimate credentials or a Professor at one of our left leaning colleges...think Ward Churchill"). Anyway he is "lecturing" regarding "how jet fuel alone could not topple the towers", in other words their is a far right contingent within OUR GOVERNMENT that chose to kill 3,000 of its citizens. The follow up to that I am sure would be so the President could finish his dads war or so that we could take Iraqi oil (funny how we have not done so). I can't wait to see where Rosie, Danny, Sean, Susan and the like leave off and "Herb" picks up. Its ok guys I am certain that you will have an audience full of 20 somethings (most of which have absolutely no direction or plan for their life) with their fingernails painted black "goth" style eager to swallow your rhetoric. To those of you 20 somethings I say question what they are selling. To the rest of you I say boycott Cafe Domenico and help show its proprietors how they have benefited from capitalism. Free speech is an awesome and valued right of AMERICAN citizens, so is the right to chose where we spend our hard earned AMERICAN dollar!
Maybe Herb and the crew from Cafe Domenico can get a grant from the Iraqi government or some other middle eastern company to open a coffee shop there!
Of course these are just my opinions.
(I wonder if this will inspire a boycott, as well . . .)
Maybe Herb and the crew from Cafe Domenico can get a grant from the Iraqi government or some other middle eastern company to open a coffee shop there!
Of course these are just my opinions.
(I wonder if this will inspire a boycott, as well . . .)
Monday, September 24, 2007
UTICANS TONIGHT AT THE OTHER SIDE!!
Uticans for 9/11 Truth
at THE OTHER SIDE
2011 Genesee St., Utica
across from the Uptown Theater
Monday September 24th, 7 pm
Herb Smith’s talk will focus on the twin towers and building 7. He will show video clips from the day of September 11th, blue prints of the towers, and images of other documented fires of steel framed buildings. The argument at hand is that jet fuel fires alone cannot account for the collapse of the buildings.
“Whenever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true.”
Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle
at THE OTHER SIDE
2011 Genesee St., Utica
across from the Uptown Theater
Monday September 24th, 7 pm
Herb Smith’s talk will focus on the twin towers and building 7. He will show video clips from the day of September 11th, blue prints of the towers, and images of other documented fires of steel framed buildings. The argument at hand is that jet fuel fires alone cannot account for the collapse of the buildings.
“Whenever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true.”
Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Sunday, September 16, 2007
NEW PODCAST! "Cheap Shots and Skin Irritations"
When Bill Maher came out with his latest cheap jab at 9/11 Truth, I had to respond. Also, there's lots of happy stuff about "New Moon" Tarpley and the Alex Jones Experience, and why 9/11 is more like a skin rash than a vocation. Download the piece HERE.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Monday, September 10, 2007
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
I just received this as a myspace bulletin, posted by FREE. Good stuff here!
PROPAGANDA, "PSYOPS", DEBUNKING TECHNIQUES
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
PROPAGANDA, "PSYOPS", DEBUNKING TECHNIQUES
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
TARPLEY PUTS THE "BUNK" IN KENNEBUNKPORT
I'm sick of being told to hide under the bed by The Boy Who Cried Wolfowitz. Webster Tarpley wrote a great book about 9/11, but his continued tactics to hold us in a state of nattering dread have reached a new low in this "Kennebunkport Warning" business.
I guess the new ploy is to get celebrities to sign a piece of paper, photoshop their signatures onto your screed of choice, and call them "liars" and "wretched individuals" if they say they didn't endorse the hot document. This makes 9/11 Truth look real good, guys.
We need to keep the 9/11 Truth stuff to the laws of physics and the such like, and stop pulling this Nostradamus crap. "Chicken Little" Tarpley has been predicting a "false-flag terror event" for ages now--which is one of the reasons I stopped listening to his show. I can't live in perpetual crisis mode.
Fuck being afraid. Life is too short, and there's too much good music out there.
I guess the new ploy is to get celebrities to sign a piece of paper, photoshop their signatures onto your screed of choice, and call them "liars" and "wretched individuals" if they say they didn't endorse the hot document. This makes 9/11 Truth look real good, guys.
We need to keep the 9/11 Truth stuff to the laws of physics and the such like, and stop pulling this Nostradamus crap. "Chicken Little" Tarpley has been predicting a "false-flag terror event" for ages now--which is one of the reasons I stopped listening to his show. I can't live in perpetual crisis mode.
Fuck being afraid. Life is too short, and there's too much good music out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
