Opposites Detract

The opposite of a conspiracy theorist is a pundit, in the same way as the opposite of a terrorist is a freedom fighter; they are both killers.

If one visits a site devoted to mathematics, only empirical fact will be found. If one visits CNN.com, for example, 90% of the content is nothing but opinion put forward by a panel of pundits. How is this different than a conspiracy site? The only difference is whose side they are on. Much of the time, their facts are just as dubious.

Does Terrorism Even Exist?

Terrorism itself has had many uses and gone through many transformations throughout the ages. Terrorism has been used in order to subvert, manipulate, silence, coerce, influence, persuade, and otherwise intervene in both the operations of nation-states and the interruption of such operations. Terrorism has been used by both sides, small and large, weak and strong, defender and aggressor, antagonist and protagonist, over many issues, and in many theatres. Terrorism is a relative term.

Consider, for a moment, its definition, roughly: the act of instilling fear in order to serve a specific purpose. Thus terrorism has been used in advertising (buy this before we run out,) in child-rearing (do you want to be punished?,)  in religion (avoid this or you will go to hell,) in politics (they will hurt the economy,) and in environmentalism (the consequences would be disastrous.) Truly, terrorism has been used in all aspects of all of our lives. The degree to which it has is simply a matter of scale.

However, when we speak of or hear the term in our daily lives, we understand it to mean something more sinister, more dire, and more violent.

Terrorism is always used to describe the tactics of an opponent no matter which side of a conflict they find themselves on. One would never describe one’s allies as terrorists. Al-Qaeda would not describe members of ISIS as terrorists, just as NATO would not describe the Turkish government as such (even though some Kurds might.)

Terrorism is also a tool. Just as a hammer can be used to build a house or to tear one down, terror can be used for the purpose of (perceived) good or (perceived) evil. It all depends on whether the terrorists themselves use terror tactics or they are used by proxy. Terrorists refer to themselves as rebels or freedom fighters whereas their opponents who use those same acts by proxy refer to them as mercenaries. When acts of terror are used against one’s self, they are called false flag attacks.

Although terror has been used against populations for millenia, the nineteen-seventies saw terror take on new and different forms. For one thing, the television played a big part in bringing attention to many unknown causes, opinions, and state actors. Terrorism would fizzle out very quickly were it not for the mass media making its case. For another thing, the terrorists in the seventies knew who to target (they often went after pertinent individuals,) but the governments did not. Now the tables have been turned. The government (supposedly) knows about plots before they happen (when it is to their benefit,) governments target individuals, and the terrorists attack helpless civilians instead of those in positions of power.

One must ask the question, why do the terrorists never attack the wealthy, the elite? Why are F1 races and polo matches and horse races and film festivals not attacked? Why has Monaco never been attacked (the worse that can be said of Monaco is that there is an underlying threat from terrorism? ) Why are certain buildings never targeted, buildings in which decisions concerning global policy are struck? They must be much easier to hit than buildings like the Pentagon, the Murrah, and the big three in New York. With ISIS destroying ancient art, why are museums and art galleries never hit? Buildings like bank headquarters and world trade associations are not targeted… nobody ever hits an NGO, just civilians.

It is said that terrorists hate our freedom, but it can’t be just that (if it is at all) because there are many groups, each with their own issues. They can’t all be against freedom and only against freedom. Don’t they have other demands like sovereignty, food, peace, freedom from resource-driven oppression, water, education… ? They seek freedom too, after all, freedom from western intervention.

Terrorists used to want to get the general public on their side. They wanted sympathy towards their cause. Attacking a population is what you do when you want minorities to leave your town, or when you want to start a race war. When you have a political message to send, you target those involved, like they knew to do way back in the seventies – the ‘golden age’ of terror.

If government wanted us NOT to be afraid, state-run news agencies would ignore the attacks, not produce free advertising for the terrorists (like when they withhold a name so as not to fan the popularity fire.)

So what do we make of terror perpetrated ON the masses while being shown ad infinitum TO the masses and never injuring ANY of the elite? Conditioning? Advertising? But what are they selling? Dominance, perhaps.

We must therefore assume that terrorism, these days, is not the work of terrorists, but of ‘other’ groups that want us scared, obedient, and docile. <sarc>Who could that possibly be? And why? Why? </sarc> Of course we all know the answers to the questions posed in New York, Madrid, London, Boston, Newtown, Paris, San Bernadino, et al.; it is high time we started admitting that to ourselves. There may never have been a legitimate act of terror perpetrated in the west outside of the IRA, ever (actually, the IRA WAS involved in talks with the British government… hmmm?!)

Besides, don’t ISIS have websites? Couldn’t their ISPs shut them down or, at least, identify them? It’s not like ISIS has its own satellites.


*Update*

Another truly excellent article by ZH’s George Washington:

False Flags Are Just a Conspiracy Theory … Admitted Fact

“Most terrorists are false flag terrorists or are created by our own security services.”


*Update*

Arjun Walia,
Waking Times Media

“The latest whistleblower is David Steele, a 20-year Marine Corps intelligence officer, and the second-highest-ranking civilian in the U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence. He is a former CIA clandestine services case officer, and this is what he had to say:”

Most terrorists are false flag terrorists, or are created by our own security services. In the United States, every single terrorist incident we have had has been a false flag, or has been an informant pushed on by the FBI. In fact, we now have citizens taking out restraining orders against FBI informants that are trying to incite terrorism. We’ve become a lunatic asylum.

Trump’s Second Chance

What’s going to happen when Trump retracts by saying he mis-spoke about the cheering Arabs? He will correct himself by saying that it was , in fact, Israelis who cheered (6:51) when the towers came down.

A damning article implicating Mossad, and this about the art students.

He will, of course, be right, and the media will have no choice but to report the fact that some Israelis claimed to have had fore-knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. This will re-open the wounds of 9/11 and all the truthers will team up with the bankster-haters to give him his landslide presidency.

After all, who knows more about New York real estate than the Donald? Who knows more building inspectors? Is this how he plans to reveal the truth about 9/11 to the American voters? In light of the current trend to buck the establishment types, perhaps this is just what the US secretly wants right now – a protectionist president who calls them like he sees them.

Expect talk of the USS Liberty to become a hot topic in the upcoming news/election cycle.

He didn’t capitalize the last time he had a chance to wrap up the election; will he do it this time?

*Update*

Step two is complete.

“The Donald: Israel, American Jews, Funding ISIS and World Terrorism

Can We Both Be Right?

I had an exchange with a climate alarmist the other day, an exchange for which I felt the need to apologize. I sent him an email today. The subject line read: “Apology”.

Yesterday, we had exchanged opinions and facts about climate change and couldn’t agree about any of it. Today, the day after our exchange, I found myself bothered by it. I wondered why we couldn’t get along? He is a damn good researcher; how could he be so wrong. Maybe he thought the same of me.

I was going through an article I had recently written, looking at a graph which showed temperature and CO2 levels over the past several hundred million years. I saw that both CO2 levels and global temperatures had very rarely ever been this low, and I thought that surely this would lead to desertification. After all, the tundra is a desert, despite its low temperature. How could he think that this natural uptrend after near-record cold was anything but normal, anything to be worried about, anything unexpected? It had since leveled-off, so no problem, right? Why did he look at it as record highs when it was clearly (near) record lows?

My short answer was that he must only have been looking at the local US surface temperature record over a very short time span, and I was looking at satellite data as well as long term data covering more of the history of the earth, and this is what led to his distorted view. If the charts start in the sixties, it’s been getting warmer. If the charts start six-hundred million years ago, brrr. On a planetary level, however, no big deal. This seemed to explain away the problem as well as all the sub-problems like sea-level rise, Arctic ice extent, storm activity, etc. etc. etc. He was the American alarmist who took the ‘nothing outside our borders matters’ and the ‘we have the best equipment so everyone else is wrong’ view, and I was the voice of reason with a view to the world. Typical US-Canada relations.

I went for a walk to clear my head. Why was this still bothering me? I had figured out the problem; I had my answer. But there was more to it than that. There was something missing. As I walked around my neighbourhood, I thought about power structures and relationships, I thought about hegemony and what it can do to one’s perspective, I thought about the philosophy behind the situation when it hit me: Hegel – Mondrian – binary code. What if we were both right?

Continue reading “Can We Both Be Right?”

Conspi-Racist

People with wealth, power, and influence say many things. Of those things, some seem to come up more often than others, namely:

1- Overpopulation is our biggest problem

2- CO2 is pollution, and climate change is bad

3- GMO’s are safe and can feed more people

4- Vaccines will make you healthy

5- Wireless radiation isn’t harmful

6- Nuclear energy is green energy

7- There are no conspiracies

8- Did I mention overpopulation?

Based on the initial premise that there are too many people on the planet; do you think that the powers that be would suggest doing anything which would make that problem worse? Why implement plans that make the biggest problem bigger? So the rest of the things on that list should not help increase the population, should they? In fact, all of those things will actually reduce the population, as they should; given that over-population is such a problem.

It would be akin to saying that despite the fact that nuclear weapons are the biggest threat to mankind and must be eradicated, we need more nuclear weapons to keep us safe. No, wait, that’s a bad example. It would be like saying that we must find a cure for cancer, and then spend most of the money to research treatment options. Scratch that, another bad example. Like self-regulating financial industries… no. Like we need more debt to pay our debts… no. Oh, like more security means less freedom… no, no, no. Ok, so these aren’t the best examples; but you get the gist, right?

Well, the truth of the matter is that the narratives are becoming hopelessly intertwined.

Continue reading “Conspi-Racist”