Thanks for this..I wish I had found this before the election so I could convince more friends and family..not that it would have changed much. US citizens seem to be under Hopenosis. I voted for Cynthia McKinney. Sadly the world is not ready.
I really think Tarpley should approach this material from a different angle. In defense of Obama and his handlers it really does seem like a natural idea that a one world government is the only hope to defuse the potential of an eventual nuclear exchange. But the process of establishing this government necessarily means a greatly increased likelihood of such an exchange occuring before completion.
Of course I entirely disagree with the Machiavellian methods these Zionist bankers are using to establish the NWO. But that doesn't change the fact that the eventual outcome may increase the potential future survival of mankind..if you can ignore the "boot stamping on a human face - forever" part.
Maybe humanity is an experiment conducted by E.T.s and they are pulling the strings for our own good. How I would love to be a fly on the wall in the Oval Office.
This is all very, very interesting stuff, but this guy is making assumptions that are really based in old Cold War politics. Finance capital in the US Europe and Asia has merged into a single entity- Russia and China are keeping the US economy afloat. I definitely buy some intramural jockeying amongst the different elites, but not to the extent this guy claims. I smell a bit of Huck$ter here.
And hey- News flash: politicians (sic) don't actually make policy and Presidents are meant to "preside" which is an honorary, ceremonial position.
AB, good points, and yeah, kinda hard to ignore. Maybe, maybe!
CK, yeah I agree I don't like some of his language and some of what he says isn't too reliable either. All true about the presiding. But the common joe sure doesn't recognize that (like these puppies, at least he warns against the hope-nosis and Brzezinski's BS. The best anyone can do is educated guess work about what's really going on behind the scenes, his is just another opinion.
OK- wait a second. BS Alert- in part two he says the plan is to deprive China of oil and raw materials. Uh, did he happen to notice that China is America's Sweatshop and if their economy collapses so does ours? And that includes our military and finance sectors?
Tarpley is a disciple of Windbag La Douce, so keep your BS filters up here. Some interesting and valuable questions being raised, but leftover EIR stuff from the mid 70s for answers.
BS filters should always be kept up around these parts ;p LOL at windbag la douce. Yah gotta be careful with stating the "plans" lol, and especially the Made In China.
Alex Grey must be just another mindless soul entranced by Obama's 'hope-nosis' too, I suppose. If you want another little jolt to the basis of your belief system, to go along with the surprisingly positive tone of your recent MJ Keenan(syncs up with Alex Grey, he was the artist for Tool album covers) post, go look at his newest painting: http://alexgrey.com/ or just google "Alex Grey Obama" and you'll find it. Be careful, though, you might get hypnotized, you know Obama has those strange powers(atleast I read that somewhere on the internet, so it must be true, right?) or maybe your computer screen will freeze and get stuck on that image - Noooo! If you are able to pull yourself away, you should watch this video at this site:
In all seriousness, there's alot more positivity in the American psyche as a result of this election. You can call it what you want, and dish out your ridicule indiscrimantly as you are wont to do if that suits your tastes. You are free to categorically discredit as mindless sheeple those who believed they were actually striving to help co-create a better world in this election by exercising their right to vote. This seems to be your pattern of thought when it comes to Obama. I think your missing the point. I wonder if you can see that, even as you are puportedly seeking the truth, you're working to pro-actively spread propaganda, like that BS video, because it feeds into your biases against believing that positive change is even possible. It's not encouraging, not too surprising, at this point, but definitely not a positive vibe on alot of these types of sites and blogs these days - It's just so many seeminlgly fear-based, 'us vs. them'-type memes. Bush didn't fulfill their paranoid fantasy of cancelling the election and declaring himself dicator and instituting Martial Law, so the sites of fearmongering 'researchers' like Tarpley, Alex Jones, etc. are being trained on the new "imminent threat to mankind" as their belief systems(or more likely, simply their marketing strategy for their new books and products) readjust to the new object of fear. I'm not scared, I read all this stuff too, but, more and more, the BS-nature of most of it is getting harder to disguise, in my opinion.
I hope you read my response as you're lucky your filtering emotional comment (which the BS filter literally alludes to) even got posted. But I endulge again to hopefully make you see I'm not doing what you assume I am doing.
First of all I already knew about & don't think what you assumingly imply about Alex Grey and applaud his painting, even though I kinda like his other work more, hehe. I do agree that there is a lot more positive spirit now and MJK helped me realize that. Glad you were able to acknowledge that btw, at least you managed to include one thing that didn't agree with your assumptions. Quite a feat.
Now I'm sorry you don't know about Ericksonian hypnosis as that clearly comes through from your comment. Hypnosis is just a technique and anyone that doesn't get sweeped up emotionally by Obama's empty BS speeches will see through it without having to recognize the language patterns. I happened to mention in the exact post that mentions that, that I have studied Neurolinguistic programming - and this blog clearly illustrates that as I've recently also posted the META-Model which can help you see through such BS generalizations and empty symbolist language.
So no, I didn't just read it on the internet somewhere. I'm guessing you skimmed over that post emotionally, if you didn't, you could have read that... on the internet somewhere in the same post.
Now if you don't "believe" in hypnosis but "believe" in Obama, this is gonna make it futile to make you realize this, but then again your or anyone's beliefs don't concern me, that's why the BS filter is mentioned in the comments disclaimer... I deal in facts, ideas and truth, specifically not in beliefs.
I've listened to his speeches many times, I don't judge based on a whim or what someone else says, and each time I did I wondered just what the hell intelligent people find so good about them - beside the cunning use of language patterns and empty symbolism. Sure his manner of speaking is refreshing after 8 years of Bush but then again... ANYTHING would be.
I'm not missing the point at all when Obama is surrounded by the shadiest possible people who represent anything but positive "change".
I'm amused at the assuming and generalizing nature of throwing every conspiracy researcher in with all the others. I'm sorry to disappoint but I don't follow conspiracy researchers as - oh let's say for example - some people follow a politician...
BTW, it says "Believe Nothing" on the top of this blog, that means that I expect my visitors to think for themselves and I don't spell out all my own objections when I post something that contains some interesting points. And btw, I also did not publish a comment on this post that was pro-Webster Tarpley because well, it was BS and literally contained the words "I believe". Ok?
I'm not "scared" either, but I'm not deluded as so many obviously are to think Obama is gonna be representing much change, especially in the Middle East when he surrounds himself with AIPAC lobbyists and Zbigniew Brzezinski. That's not fearmongering, that's realism.
I'm actively working to help at least some people see through the Obama Propaganda, some comments I receive and the unthinking internet memes about Obama in general make it seem really necessary...
Get real Jack, this is a freaking politician you're defending and the BS nature of his persona is getting harder and harder to disguise with every new staff member he announces.
If I upset the emotional balance of your Belief System this blog is not right for you, this is the precise aim of my blog and the people who look at ALL sides of the story will see that I aim for truth. The others I don't bother with. The Belief System is also called a "Comfort Zone" for a reason.
Your next comment will have to be a little more polite, conscious, unfiltering and unassuming to get through the BS filter, which is aptly called so for a reason. Belief Systems and the emotional attachment makes that BullShit comes out instead of rational thought. But be warned, if it's really far out, I sometimes post it to show my blog visitors another display in irrational BS.
So far, of all the emotional comments I've gotten about Obama not a single one has given me one good reason why I should "believe in his change." (You're not the first to challenge me and fail on this...)
Not a single one has not been emotional and not a single one has not been filtering out most of the valid reasons I have given many times why I object to being swept up by his BS propaganda.
And yes I will keep ridiculing mindless people who vote for the media pushed puppets of the 2aka1-party system.
There were many candidates this election that actually represented change, even in the democratic and republican party! But somehow they didn't "stand a chance" thanks to unthinking voting public that got distracted by the media manipulations and blackouts.
Dedroidify, I don't mean to be impolite, but I am only seeking to challenge you on the basis of the content that your posting on your blog, not personally. It's your blog and you can filter out the "BS" as you see fit, but just let me respond, hopefully it won't get too long. oops
The reason I brought up Alex Grey is because I thought he might be someone who you would think shares some of the inclinations you have expressed to be some of the foundations upon which your sense of understanding of our world, the physical world, matter and energy, psychedelic explorations of conciousness, etc. In these respects, you seem to have a very open-minded and dynamic basis upon which to interpret the world and you do, on most subjects, in my opinion, which I'm sure doesn't matter to you, but is my opinion nonetheless.
The thing is, you're not just opening up the debate to questions about Obama, whoever supports him, who his advisors are, etc., you're actively making a negative case and claiming as sources of "fact" videos such as that Tarpley vid, which you yourself admitted, when prompted by that Secret Sun guy, are pretty baseless when subjected to even the most basic level of scrutiny. That video is just a mix of internet propaganda and marketing by somebody looking to sell books. Then, you go on, in your response to my comment, to make the following statement, speaking of the challenges that have been made to your negative view of Obama and all of his supporters, as you go on later to make a point to agressively ridicule them in a categorical manner[saying "And yes I will keep ridiculing mindless people who vote for the media pushed puppets of the 2aka1-party system"]. but consider this quote:
"Not a single one has not been emotional and not a single one has not been filtering out most of the valid reasons I have given many times why I object to being swept up by his BS propaganda."
What about Secret Sun's? Was that emotional? See, he's not making a positive, pro-Obama challenge to your posting of that Tarpley vid, he's just calling out the fact that the vid was BS. I agree, and that's the point I'm making too. That video is pure propaganda to stir up paranoia and sell books. You have admitted this in your respectful response to his comment. And yet, your posts on this subject are cited in response to my comment as "valid reasons", and supposing anyone who challenges their validity as being "emotionally"[actually "not...not...emotional", in your words, by which I assume you are trying to say the same thing] motivated, presumably by what, in the way you have structured(deconstructed?)your system of evaluating reality, can only possibly a thoughtless devotion to Obama that clouds the minds of those who would challenge your agressively negative view on Obama. My original comment was in response speccifically to the posting of this Tarpley vid, but, in other posts, let's make it clear, you are making assumptions about things that may or may not transpire in the future, and you are frequently citing as references for these speculations sources who have made endless series' of false predictons for years(like Tarpley).
Just one small example, in the post you made titled "News(ance) Roundup (updated post) from Oct. 9, you say the following
"I wonder what all these shills are going to say when Obama is the one to implement fascism, oopsy? But look at my hair? ..."
So see, you're not just challenging the belief systems of those who may or may not support Obama, you're making forward predicions about the future, effectively creating or outlying the structure of your own belief system about future events. In the excerpt immediately following that statement, you're linking twice to Prison Planet, Alex Jones' website. This is relevant as a response to the following statement you made earlier in your response to my comment
"I'm amused at the assuming and generalizing nature of throwing every conspiracy researcher in with all the others. I'm sorry to disappoint but I don't follow conspiracy researchers as - oh let's say for example - some people follow a politician...
Heh, nice one, but I'm not making a positive case for Obama. I don't "believe in Obama". I believe that he is the President-Elect of the United States. And I believe in the possibility of a positive future for humanity, but I'll finish up with those thoughts at the end. Here, I'm just making the case for having an open mind on the matter and not basing the content of the thoughts you are ecpressing in your posts on what you have already admitted to be questionable sources. You see, I'm not lumping in "every conspiracy researcher...with all the others." Maybe I wasn't clear enough about that. I'm just talking specifically about the ones your citing as sources of material for the posts you are making. In one case, Webster Tarpley, in the other Alex Jones/Prison Planet, both cases that apparently got through your "BS filter", despite the obvious commercial nature of their interests and spreading such propaganda. This is the same BS filter that accepts the hypnosis theory of Obama's oratorial success, whatever its particular merit, based on theories about speech, that, no matter how much research you do about them, still boil down to just somebody's opinion expressed on the internet. In this regard, it would become difficult not to subject other speakers, like Alex Jones, whose website you have linked to as I have cited, who screams at the top of his lungs to get his points across, and scares alot of people into believing alot of scary things he apparently doesn't feel could be talked about in a less sensational manner. So, maybe Obama speaks in a driven, perhpas hypnotic way, perhaps this is even true. I don't see how that makes him anything more than a highly effective public speaker. The only way you can make the leap forward in belief that he "is the one to implement fascism" as you have asserted, is to make assumptions about future events that you simply cannot really know are going to occur.
And, so it all falls into the category of speculation, you see. I've read articles that claim Obama's advisors to be wonderful geniuses and I've read articles that claim that they are reptilian alien Satanists, it's all on the internet, so you can say anything you want and provide a link to something that 'backs it up'. To argue the "facts" in this manner becomes a nonsensical and pointless exercise. Yet, you state that "I deal in facts, ideas and truth, specifically not in beliefs." But you are basing your posts, specifically in those two cases, but there are quite a few more, on this same way of sourcing, providing links to speculative musings posted on the internet. You even admit in this thread the validity of challenging these sources. Again, you say that you "deal in facts, ideas, and truth, specifically not in beliefs" but your making the assertion that "Obama is the one to implement fascism", now how to you square that? How does that assertion fall into the category of "facts, ideas, and truth" and not into the category of "beliefs". By its nature it is a predicition about about the future, and a bold and very important one. How's the saying go - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And you are making assertions about the future which cannot possibly be known by you at the present time. And its not like your making a sportsbook for next week's betting lines, you're making very marked claims that would presumably effect the lives of the entire human race in profound and troubling ways, and could lead people to take some pretty drastic actions if they were to take what you say as "fact".
Thankfully, I think most people who would come across your blog can probably squeeze out of the teet of your rhetoric about "only dealing in facts, etc." the milky. cloudy level of 'reality' and 'fact' that your speculative excesses have brought you into in your posts on these subjects. On the other hand, some might not, and perhaps that is something that matters to you, or perhaps it is not. I would guess that it is not. I just hope that not too many folks out there are taking these statements as objective fact, which is what the claims you have made in your response to my comment would seem to suggest is your position, although you would seem to have contradicted that in your response to 'Secret Sun'.
Sure there are too many people in the world who never even begin to question the popular notions of reality, political or otherwise, but there are also alot of folks out there lost in a chaotic paranoia where they lose the ability to trust and identify with their fellow humans.
Indeed, there are too many out there who have lost a sense of optimism as to the future of human kind. Talk about a "Postmodern Coup"? Not in the misinterpretive sense for which Tarpley has hijacked the term "postmodern", but in the philosphical(Foucault, Niestzsche, Sarte) sense from which the term owes its origin; this is the quintessential expression of the dilemma of the "postmodern human", hence the title of Sartre's "Being and Nothingness". All sense of a possibility for positive meaning is rejected and torn away and we are left with a chaos of confusion and furious opposition to the world that surrounds us. In a sense, this makes us sick, not in the sense of feeling empty, but of being disgusted by the world we have known - this is the "Nausea" Sartre desscribes in his work of the same name. It is only when this state of being is dynamically overcome by the positive construction of a newer and fuller sense of reality that Nietzsche's ubermensch is able to reach that next level. It is a tragedy that some will find themselves stuck in a place where they reject all notions of the possibility of positive change occuring both in the world outside themselves, and, antecedent to that feeling, at a deeper level, the world inside themselves.
Am I suggesting that Obama can bring about such positive change all by himslelf, or even as a direct result of anything he might achieve? Not likely, but I would suggest that a renewed sense of hope has come over the American psyche as the result of his election, and this opens up possibilities for the future that seemed unlikely just a few months ago. Of course, I am just speculating now, by my own admission, but I hope that its food for thought. Feel free to omit that last paragraph if you feel that my "BS" is leaking into the text there. Actually you can obviously do whatever you want with the whole post, it is pretty long, and, like I said, its your blog, but I think I made a decent attempt to respectfully and politely respond. Thanks
"The thing is, you're not just opening up the debate to questions about Obama, whoever supports him, who his advisors are, etc., you're actively making a negative case and claiming as sources of "fact" videos such as that Tarpley vid" Since the Obama supporters are making an active positive case, I will post whatever counters it. The Tarpley vid went into the men behind Obama too, which is the most important point about him to me, as those people cannot be trusted. Like it or not, the video contained facts.
"What about Secret Sun's? Was that emotional? See, he's not making a positive, pro-Obama challenge to your posting of that Tarpley vid, he's just calling out the fact that the vid was BS." No, he called out that some aspects of the vid were BS. Not the entire vid. His first comment implies that he didn't watch the second vid before commenting the first time. I know Secret Sun doesn't support Obama in the slightest, because I visit his blog every day. And you happen to filter out he mentions Obama is just a symbol himself, "presiding" and not a decider. So your point here is mute. I was referring to people who have commented emotionally totally in defense of Obama, only point out the questionable allegations and filtering out all factual allegation, like you do, btw.
"emotionally"[actually "not...not...emotional", in your words, by which I assume you are trying to say the same thing] motivated, presumably by what, in the way you have structured(deconstructed?)your system of evaluating reality, can only possibly a thoughtless devotion to Obama that clouds the minds of those who would challenge your agressively negative view on Obama. I wonder what all these shills are going to say when Obama is the one to implement fascism, oopsy? But look at my hair? ..." So see, you're not just challenging the belief systems of those who may or may not support Obama, you're making forward predicions about the future, effectively creating or outlying the structure of your own belief system about future events." When someone says "I wonder" they are kinda literally being speculative, they are not "making forward predictions" :p, and even if I did, you think I take any forward prediction seriously? Forward predictions are never facts, they are ideas, and I expect people who come here to know the difference.
And yup, I have a very negative view of the general politician. If you don't, you obviously believe in the representative democracy, I do not, I'm not gonna go into why, if that's a question you're asking this is so the wrong blog for you.
"In the excerpt immediately following that statement, you're linking twice to Prison Planet, Alex Jones' website." I link to a lot of websites that have questionable information but also contain valid information, all the time. I have enough respect for my visitors to distinguish what is bs and what is not. If they can't, they should go read a few books instead of internet blogs.
"Heh, nice one, but I'm not making a positive case for Obama. I don't "believe in Obama". I believe that he is the President-Elect of the United States. And I believe in the possibility of a positive future for humanity," Ok let's say you're not full of shit here for a second, you at least link those two, and come across as believing in Obama, and for me, to place that trust in politics is just absurd.
"I'm just talking specifically about the ones your citing as sources of material for the posts you are making." That is a big assumption, those people are not "my sources", they are admittedly questionable folks who have some valid as well as questionable points concerning Obama and politics in general. My source is my own mind and if someone can't see that the Obama selection was BS well, then agree to disagree.
"In one case, Webster Tarpley, in the other Alex Jones/Prison Planet, both cases that apparently got through your "BS filter", despite the obvious commercial nature of their interests and spreading such propaganda." That is your assumption that this material is propaganda, I say most of mainstream media and what comes out of politicians mouthes is propaganda, quite the difference of starting position huh? "Ideas are toys" means that a lot of sites I link are just not gonna give you the "truth", you know why? Cause most websites don't :p.
"This is the same BS filter that accepts the hypnosis theory of Obama's oratorial success, whatever its particular merit, based on theories about speech, that, no matter how much research you do about them, still boil down to just somebody's opinion expressed on the internet." Errr, wrong again. After all you're blabla about openmindedness and consciousness you discard Hypnosis as "somebody's opinion on the internet" lol. Amazing and predictable at the same time. Hypnosis is a technique, I have hypnotized people, I have been hypnotized and the "opinion expressed on the internet" is showing how you BS filter out the existence of hypnosis and a blatant filtering out of that part of my post. So tell you what, start reading on the topic before you blurt out assumptions, you can go to the library, if the internet bothers you so much. Your belief on the matter is irrelevant if you know nothing about it.
"In this regard, it would become difficult not to subject other speakers, like Alex Jones, whose website you have linked to as I have cited, who screams at the top of his lungs to get his points across, and scares alot of people into believing alot of scary things he apparently doesn't feel could be talked about in a less sensational manner." If a corrupt system doesn't make you passionate I don't know what will. But I don't "have to" defend Alex Jones just cause I link him. I've linked all kinds of crazy shit on this blog :p And I've disagreed with Alex Jones in many posts on this blog too, specifically about positive future possibilities he was denying.
"So, maybe Obama speaks in a driven, perhpas hypnotic way, perhaps this is even true. I don't see how that makes him anything more than a highly effective public speaker. The only way you can make the leap forward in belief that he "is the one to implement fascism" as you have asserted, is to make assumptions about future events that you simply cannot really know are going to occur." A highly effective public speaker? Oh really? When I listen to a politician, I'd like him to say what he's actually gonna do and expect him not to turn half of those around during the campaign, I expect him to not blurt out empty symbols like change and hope, and a better tomorrow, and other empty language. This doesn't make him an effective speaker to me, but a typical politician.
A typical politician. I guess a lot of people forgot that after the fear-based politics of the last 8 years, but Obama is just a typical smooth talking politician.
"And, so it all falls into the category of speculation, you see. I've read articles that claim Obama's advisors to be wonderful geniuses and I've read articles that claim that they are reptilian alien Satanists, it's all on the internet, so you can say anything you want and provide a link to something that 'backs it up'. To argue the "facts" in this manner becomes a nonsensical and pointless exercise. Yet, you state that "I deal in facts, ideas and truth, specifically not in beliefs." But you are basing your posts, specifically in those two cases, but there are quite a few more, on this same way of sourcing, providing links to speculative musings posted on the internet. You even admit in this thread the validity of challenging these sources." Again, "believe nothing" means that I link sites that I find interesting, and I deal in probabilities not in absolutes, is literally in the disclaimer in the blog info. Literally. I don't know what can be more obvious. Your biggest problem, besides confusing ideas with facts is that you disagree with what I suggest here and that I'm not on the hope-train.
"Again, you say that you "deal in facts, ideas, and truth, specifically not in beliefs" but your making the assertion that "Obama is the one to implement fascism", now how to you square that? How does that assertion fall into the category of "facts, ideas, and truth" and not into the category of "beliefs"." Err, speculation falls in the category of ideas :p Ok? Beliefs are the things one is emotionally attached to and does not see the other side of, I've seen the other side of Obama, and I continue to check it out, and think it's pretty damn stupid. I also think people defending him or attacking all criticism of him fall in that category.
"By its nature it is a predicition about about the future, and a bold and very important one. How's the saying go - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And you are making assertions about the future which cannot possibly be known by you at the present time. And its not like your making a sportsbook for next week's betting lines, you're making very marked claims that would presumably effect the lives of the entire human race in profound and troubling ways, and could lead people to take some pretty drastic actions if they were to take what you say as "fact"." LOL, if some people wanna take "drastic actions" because they read something on this or any blog that's their ignorant problem, I expect people to think for themselves, the ones that don't have no business here. And the generality of my "weird" posts should "scare" away the simple folk that strand on this site by accident. People are responsible for themselves.
"Thankfully, I think most people who would come across your blog can probably squeeze out of the teet of your rhetoric about "only dealing in facts, etc." the milky. cloudy level of 'reality' and 'fact' that your speculative excesses have brought you into in your posts on these subjects. On the other hand, some might not, and perhaps that is something that matters to you, or perhaps it is not. I would guess that it is not." No, again, believe nothing and ideas are toys in the header kinda make clear what's going on here. If people wanna ignore the blog info that's one thing, but the header entirely too? That is their "ignor-ance" and something I am not responsible for.
"I just hope that not too many folks out there are taking these statements as objective fact, which is what the claims you have made in your response to my comment would seem to suggest is your position" Not really, assumptions again, and hey you're "hoping" that simple people don't take what I say as fact. Simple people don't stick around here too long, it's too weird for them.
"All sense of a possibility for positive meaning is rejected and torn away and we are left with a chaos of confusion and furious opposition to the world that surrounds us. In a sense, this makes us sick, not in the sense of feeling empty, but of being disgusted by the world we have known - this is the "Nausea" Sartre desscribes in his work of the same name. It is only when this state of being is dynamically overcome by the positive construction of a newer and fuller sense of reality that Nietzsche's ubermensch is able to reach that next level. It is a tragedy that some will find themselves stuck in a place where they reject all notions of the possibility of positive change occuring both in the world outside themselves, and, antecedent to that feeling, at a deeper level, the world inside themselves." Man, this is quite the frustrated overgeneralization.
"Am I suggesting that Obama can bring about such positive change all by himslelf, or even as a direct result of anything he might achieve? Not likely, but I would suggest that a renewed sense of hope has come over the American psyche as the result of his election, and this opens up possibilities for the future that seemed unlikely just a few months ago. Of course, I am just speculating now, by my own admission, but I hope that its food for thought." Well obviously, too bad it's UNFOUNDED hope though, most Obama supporters don't know the men surrounding him, his voting record, his oil profits, etc etc, it's all been said too many freaking times and guess what, none of these are adressed by you, except that you read the men behind him are geniuses/satanists - wow, you listed two extremes. Awesome... How about the facts about the men, what they've done before, what they're already responsible of. What ideological think tanks they're a part of. No nevermind that, cause Obama "might" mean some kind of "change".
"Feel free to omit that last paragraph if you feel that my "BS" is leaking into the text there. Actually you can obviously do whatever you want with the whole post, it is pretty long, and, like I said, its your blog, but I think I made a decent attempt to respectfully and politely respond. Thanks"
You can't ommitt parts of a comment, it's the whole very long thing or nothing. Yup, you baffled me by this response by your relative politeness, so kudos for that at least. Yet you don't touch on the "facts" that make Obama and the men behind him actually questionable as anyone who can't handle the criticism can't, you only touch on what is questionable to me too so I'm rather underwhelmed by your many over-generalizing statements, and stand by my posts. Which btw, will continue. So agree to disagree if you have such a different view and please stop wasting my time about this. Peace.
"I believe humanity has the potential for a positive future, I gather that you do not, or, if you do, that future is something different than what is being manifest in the present time. Keep tilting at windmills." Jack
Oh another bliss bunny on my hands that believes that his delusions will make everything right and make all the bad things go away.
You keep chasing those pipe-dreams and see how fast they will "manifest". "Believing" is your main problem indeed.
You know how useful your believing and manifesting will be about Obama? About as useful as it would have been with Bush.
I'd say I more respect for a positive future than you by at least staying a little grounded in reality. But keep enjoying your mainstream media propaganda.
10 comments:
Thanks for this..I wish I had found this before the election so I could convince more friends and family..not that it would have changed much. US citizens seem to be under Hopenosis. I voted for Cynthia McKinney. Sadly the world is not ready.
I really think Tarpley should approach this material from a different angle. In defense of Obama and his handlers it really does seem like a natural idea that a one world government is the only hope to defuse the potential of an eventual nuclear exchange. But the process of establishing this government necessarily means a greatly increased likelihood of such an exchange occuring before completion.
Of course I entirely disagree with the Machiavellian methods these Zionist bankers are using to establish the NWO. But that doesn't change the fact that the eventual outcome may increase the potential future survival of mankind..if you can ignore the "boot stamping on a human face - forever" part.
Maybe humanity is an experiment conducted by E.T.s and they are pulling the strings for our own good. How I would love to be a fly on the wall in the Oval Office.
This is all very, very interesting stuff, but this guy is making assumptions that are really based in old Cold War politics. Finance capital in the US Europe and Asia has merged into a single entity- Russia and China are keeping the US economy afloat. I definitely buy some intramural jockeying amongst the different elites, but not to the extent this guy claims. I smell a bit of Huck$ter here.
And hey- News flash: politicians (sic) don't actually make policy and Presidents are meant to "preside" which is an honorary, ceremonial position.
AB, good points, and yeah, kinda hard to ignore. Maybe, maybe!
CK, yeah I agree I don't like some of his language and some of what he says isn't too reliable either. All true about the presiding. But the common joe sure doesn't recognize that (like these puppies, at least he warns against the hope-nosis and Brzezinski's BS. The best anyone can do is educated guess work about what's really going on behind the scenes, his is just another opinion.
Peace!
OK- wait a second. BS Alert- in part two he says the plan is to deprive China of oil and raw materials. Uh, did he happen to notice that China is America's Sweatshop and if their economy collapses so does ours? And that includes our military and finance sectors?
Tarpley is a disciple of Windbag La Douce, so keep your BS filters up here. Some interesting and valuable questions being raised, but leftover EIR stuff from the mid 70s for answers.
BS filters should always be kept up around these parts ;p LOL at windbag la douce. Yah gotta be careful with stating the "plans" lol, and especially the Made In China.
Peace
Alex Grey must be just another mindless soul entranced by Obama's 'hope-nosis' too, I suppose. If you want another little jolt to the basis of your belief system, to go along with the surprisingly positive tone of your recent MJ Keenan(syncs up with Alex Grey, he was the artist for Tool album covers) post, go look at his newest painting: http://alexgrey.com/ or just google "Alex Grey Obama" and you'll find it. Be careful, though, you might get hypnotized, you know Obama has those strange powers(atleast I read that somewhere on the internet, so it must be true, right?) or maybe your computer screen will freeze and get stuck on that image - Noooo! If you are able to pull yourself away, you should watch this video at this site:
http://spelunkingtheeideosphere.blogspot.com/2008/11/invasion-of-gun-snatchers.html
In all seriousness, there's alot more positivity in the American psyche as a result of this election. You can call it what you want, and dish out your ridicule indiscrimantly as you are wont to do if that suits your tastes. You are free to categorically discredit as mindless sheeple those who believed they were actually striving to help co-create a better world in this election by exercising their right to vote. This seems to be your pattern of thought when it comes to Obama. I think your missing the point. I wonder if you can see that, even as you are puportedly seeking the truth, you're working to pro-actively spread propaganda, like that BS video, because it feeds into your biases against believing that positive change is even possible. It's not encouraging, not too surprising, at this point, but definitely not a positive vibe on alot of these types of sites and blogs these days - It's just so many seeminlgly fear-based, 'us vs. them'-type memes. Bush didn't fulfill their paranoid fantasy of cancelling the election and declaring himself dicator and instituting Martial Law, so the sites of fearmongering 'researchers' like Tarpley, Alex Jones, etc. are being trained on the new "imminent threat to mankind" as their belief systems(or more likely, simply their marketing strategy for their new books and products) readjust to the new object of fear. I'm not scared, I read all this stuff too, but, more and more, the BS-nature of most of it is getting harder to disguise, in my opinion.
Jack
I hope you read my response as you're lucky your filtering emotional comment (which the BS filter literally alludes to) even got posted. But I endulge again to hopefully make you see I'm not doing what you assume I am doing.
First of all I already knew about & don't think what you assumingly imply about Alex Grey and applaud his painting, even though I kinda like his other work more, hehe.
I do agree that there is a lot more positive spirit now and MJK helped me realize that. Glad you were able to acknowledge that btw, at least you managed to include one thing that didn't agree with your assumptions. Quite a feat.
Now I'm sorry you don't know about Ericksonian hypnosis as that clearly comes through from your comment. Hypnosis is just a technique and anyone that doesn't get sweeped up emotionally by Obama's empty BS speeches will see through it without having to recognize the language patterns.
I happened to mention in the exact post that mentions that, that I have studied Neurolinguistic programming - and this blog clearly illustrates that as I've recently also posted the META-Model which can help you see through such BS generalizations and empty symbolist language.
So no, I didn't just read it on the internet somewhere. I'm guessing you skimmed over that post emotionally, if you didn't, you could have read that... on the internet somewhere in the same post.
Now if you don't "believe" in hypnosis but "believe" in Obama, this is gonna make it futile to make you realize this, but then again your or anyone's beliefs don't concern me, that's why the BS filter is mentioned in the comments disclaimer... I deal in facts, ideas and truth, specifically not in beliefs.
I've listened to his speeches many times, I don't judge based on a whim or what someone else says, and each time I did I wondered just what the hell intelligent people find so good about them - beside the cunning use of language patterns and empty symbolism. Sure his manner of speaking is refreshing after 8 years of Bush but then again... ANYTHING would be.
I'm not missing the point at all when Obama is surrounded by the shadiest possible people who represent anything but positive "change".
I'm amused at the assuming and generalizing nature of throwing every conspiracy researcher in with all the others. I'm sorry to disappoint but I don't follow conspiracy researchers as - oh let's say for example - some people follow a politician...
BTW, it says "Believe Nothing" on the top of this blog, that means that I expect my visitors to think for themselves and I don't spell out all my own objections when I post something that contains some interesting points.
And btw, I also did not publish a comment on this post that was pro-Webster Tarpley because well, it was BS and literally contained the words "I believe". Ok?
I'm not "scared" either, but I'm not deluded as so many obviously are to think Obama is gonna be representing much change, especially in the Middle East when he surrounds himself with AIPAC lobbyists and Zbigniew Brzezinski. That's not fearmongering, that's realism.
I'm actively working to help at least some people see through the Obama Propaganda, some comments I receive and the unthinking internet memes about Obama in general make it seem really necessary...
Get real Jack, this is a freaking politician you're defending and the BS nature of his persona is getting harder and harder to disguise with every new staff member he announces.
If I upset the emotional balance of your Belief System this blog is not right for you, this is the precise aim of my blog and the people who look at ALL sides of the story will see that I aim for truth. The others I don't bother with. The Belief System is also called a "Comfort Zone" for a reason.
Your next comment will have to be a little more polite, conscious, unfiltering and unassuming to get through the BS filter, which is aptly called so for a reason. Belief Systems and the emotional attachment makes that BullShit comes out instead of rational thought. But be warned, if it's really far out, I sometimes post it to show my blog visitors another display in irrational BS.
So far, of all the emotional comments I've gotten about Obama not a single one has given me one good reason why I should "believe in his change." (You're not the first to challenge me and fail on this...)
Not a single one has not been emotional and not a single one has not been filtering out most of the valid reasons I have given many times why I object to being swept up by his BS propaganda.
And yes I will keep ridiculing mindless people who vote for the media pushed puppets of the 2aka1-party system.
There were many candidates this election that actually represented change, even in the democratic and republican party! But somehow they didn't "stand a chance" thanks to unthinking voting public that got distracted by the media manipulations and blackouts.
Dedroidify, I don't mean to be impolite, but I am only seeking to challenge you on the basis of the content that your posting on your blog, not personally. It's your blog and you can filter out the "BS" as you see fit, but just let me respond, hopefully it won't get too long. oops
The reason I brought up Alex Grey is because I thought he might be someone who you would think shares some of the inclinations you have expressed to be some of the foundations upon which your sense of understanding of our world, the physical world, matter and energy, psychedelic explorations of conciousness, etc. In these respects, you seem to have a very open-minded and dynamic basis upon which to interpret the world and you do, on most subjects, in my opinion, which I'm sure doesn't matter to you, but is my opinion nonetheless.
The thing is, you're not just opening up the debate to questions about Obama, whoever supports him, who his advisors are, etc., you're actively making a negative case and claiming as sources of "fact" videos such as that Tarpley vid, which you yourself admitted, when prompted by that Secret Sun guy, are pretty baseless when subjected to even the most basic level of scrutiny. That video is just a mix of internet propaganda and marketing by somebody looking to sell books. Then, you go on, in your response to my comment, to make the following statement, speaking of the challenges that have been made to your negative view of Obama and all of his supporters, as you go on later to make a point to agressively ridicule them in a categorical manner[saying "And yes I will keep ridiculing mindless people who vote for the media pushed puppets of the 2aka1-party system"]. but consider this quote:
"Not a single one has not been emotional and not a single one has not been filtering out most of the valid reasons I have given many times why I object to being swept up by his BS propaganda."
What about Secret Sun's? Was that emotional? See, he's not making a positive, pro-Obama challenge to your posting of that Tarpley vid, he's just calling out the fact that the vid was BS. I agree, and that's the point I'm making too. That video is pure propaganda to stir up paranoia and sell books. You have admitted this in your respectful response to his comment. And yet, your posts on this subject are cited in response to my comment as "valid reasons", and supposing anyone who challenges their validity as being "emotionally"[actually "not...not...emotional", in your words, by which I assume you are trying to say the same thing] motivated, presumably by what, in the way you have structured(deconstructed?)your system of evaluating reality, can only possibly a thoughtless devotion to Obama that clouds the minds of those who would challenge your agressively negative view on Obama. My original comment was in response speccifically to the posting of this Tarpley vid, but, in other posts, let's make it clear, you are making assumptions about things that may or may not transpire in the future, and you are frequently citing as references for these speculations sources who have made endless series' of false predictons for years(like Tarpley).
Just one small example, in the post you made titled "News(ance) Roundup (updated post) from Oct. 9, you say the following
"I wonder what all these shills are going to say when Obama is the one to implement fascism, oopsy? But look at my hair? ..."
So see, you're not just challenging the belief systems of those who may or may not support Obama, you're making forward predicions about the future, effectively creating or outlying the structure of your own belief system about future events. In the excerpt immediately following that statement, you're linking twice to Prison Planet, Alex Jones' website. This is relevant as a response to the following statement you made earlier in your response to my comment
"I'm amused at the assuming and generalizing nature of throwing every conspiracy researcher in with all the others. I'm sorry to disappoint but I don't follow conspiracy researchers as - oh let's say for example - some people follow a politician...
Heh, nice one, but I'm not making a positive case for Obama. I don't "believe in Obama". I believe that he is the President-Elect of the United States. And I believe in the possibility of a positive future for humanity, but I'll finish up with those thoughts at the end. Here, I'm just making the case for having an open mind on the matter and not basing the content of the thoughts you are ecpressing in your posts on what you have already admitted to be questionable sources. You see, I'm not lumping in "every conspiracy researcher...with all the others." Maybe I wasn't clear enough about that. I'm just talking specifically about the ones your citing as sources of material for the posts you are making. In one case, Webster Tarpley, in the other Alex Jones/Prison Planet, both cases that apparently got through your "BS filter", despite the obvious commercial nature of their interests and spreading such propaganda. This is the same BS filter that accepts the hypnosis theory of Obama's oratorial success, whatever its particular merit, based on theories about speech, that, no matter how much research you do about them, still boil down to just somebody's opinion expressed on the internet. In this regard, it would become difficult not to subject other speakers, like Alex Jones, whose website you have linked to as I have cited, who screams at the top of his lungs to get his points across, and scares alot of people into believing alot of scary things he apparently doesn't feel could be talked about in a less sensational manner. So, maybe Obama speaks in a driven, perhpas hypnotic way, perhaps this is even true. I don't see how that makes him anything more than a highly effective public speaker. The only way you can make the leap forward in belief that he "is the one to implement fascism" as you have asserted, is to make assumptions about future events that you simply cannot really know are going to occur.
And, so it all falls into the category of speculation, you see. I've read articles that claim Obama's advisors to be wonderful geniuses and I've read articles that claim that they are reptilian alien Satanists, it's all on the internet, so you can say anything you want and provide a link to something that 'backs it up'. To argue the "facts" in this manner becomes a nonsensical and pointless exercise. Yet, you state that "I deal in facts, ideas and truth, specifically not in beliefs." But you are basing your posts, specifically in those two cases, but there are quite a few more, on this same way of sourcing, providing links to speculative musings posted on the internet. You even admit in this thread the validity of challenging these sources. Again, you say that you "deal in facts, ideas, and truth, specifically not in beliefs" but your making the assertion that "Obama is the one to implement fascism", now how to you square that? How does that assertion fall into the category of "facts, ideas, and truth" and not into the category of "beliefs". By its nature it is a predicition about about the future, and a bold and very important one. How's the saying go - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And you are making assertions about the future which cannot possibly be known by you at the present time. And its not like your making a sportsbook for next week's betting lines, you're making very marked claims that would presumably effect the lives of the entire human race in profound and troubling ways, and could lead people to take some pretty drastic actions if they were to take what you say as "fact".
Thankfully, I think most people who would come across your blog can probably squeeze out of the teet of your rhetoric about "only dealing in facts, etc." the milky. cloudy level of 'reality' and 'fact' that your speculative excesses have brought you into in your posts on these subjects. On the other hand, some might not, and perhaps that is something that matters to you, or perhaps it is not. I would guess that it is not. I just hope that not too many folks out there are taking these statements as objective fact, which is what the claims you have made in your response to my comment would seem to suggest is your position, although you would seem to have contradicted that in your response to 'Secret Sun'.
Sure there are too many people in the world who never even begin to question the popular notions of reality, political or otherwise, but there are also alot of folks out there lost in a chaotic paranoia where they lose the ability to trust and identify with their fellow humans.
Indeed, there are too many out there who have lost a sense of optimism as to the future of human kind. Talk about a "Postmodern Coup"? Not in the misinterpretive sense for which Tarpley has hijacked the term "postmodern", but in the philosphical(Foucault, Niestzsche, Sarte) sense from which the term owes its origin; this is the quintessential expression of the dilemma of the "postmodern human", hence the title of Sartre's "Being and Nothingness". All sense of a possibility for positive meaning is rejected and torn away and we are left with a chaos of confusion and furious opposition to the world that surrounds us. In a sense, this makes us sick, not in the sense of feeling empty, but of being disgusted by the world we have known - this is the "Nausea" Sartre desscribes in his work of the same name. It is only when this state of being is dynamically overcome by the positive construction of a newer and fuller sense of reality that Nietzsche's ubermensch is able to reach that next level. It is a tragedy that some will find themselves stuck in a place where they reject all notions of the possibility of positive change occuring both in the world outside themselves, and, antecedent to that feeling, at a deeper level, the world inside themselves.
Am I suggesting that Obama can bring about such positive change all by himslelf, or even as a direct result of anything he might achieve? Not likely, but I would suggest that a renewed sense of hope has come over the American psyche as the result of his election, and this opens up possibilities for the future that seemed unlikely just a few months ago. Of course, I am just speculating now, by my own admission, but I hope that its food for thought. Feel free to omit that last paragraph if you feel that my "BS" is leaking into the text there. Actually you can obviously do whatever you want with the whole post, it is pretty long, and, like I said, its your blog, but I think I made a decent attempt to respectfully and politely respond. Thanks
"The thing is, you're not just opening up the debate to questions about Obama, whoever supports him, who his advisors are, etc., you're actively making a negative case and claiming as sources of "fact" videos such as that Tarpley vid"
Since the Obama supporters are making an active positive case, I will post whatever counters it. The Tarpley vid went into the men behind Obama too, which is the most important point about him to me, as those people cannot be trusted. Like it or not, the video contained facts.
"What about Secret Sun's? Was that emotional? See, he's not making a positive, pro-Obama challenge to your posting of that Tarpley vid, he's just calling out the fact that the vid was BS."
No, he called out that some aspects of the vid were BS. Not the entire vid. His first comment implies that he didn't watch the second vid before commenting the first time. I know Secret Sun doesn't support Obama in the slightest, because I visit his blog every day. And you happen to filter out he mentions Obama is just a symbol himself, "presiding" and not a decider. So your point here is mute. I was referring to people who have commented emotionally totally in defense of Obama, only point out the questionable allegations and filtering out all factual allegation, like you do, btw.
"emotionally"[actually "not...not...emotional", in your words, by which I assume you are trying to say the same thing] motivated, presumably by what, in the way you have structured(deconstructed?)your system of evaluating reality, can only possibly a thoughtless devotion to Obama that clouds the minds of those who would challenge your agressively negative view on Obama. I wonder what all these shills are going to say when Obama is the one to implement fascism, oopsy? But look at my hair? ..." So see, you're not just challenging the belief systems of those who may or may not support Obama, you're making forward predicions about the future, effectively creating or outlying the structure of your own belief system about future events."
When someone says "I wonder" they are kinda literally being speculative, they are not "making forward predictions" :p, and even if I did, you think I take any forward prediction seriously? Forward predictions are never facts, they are ideas, and I expect people who come here to know the difference.
And yup, I have a very negative view of the general politician. If you don't, you obviously believe in the representative democracy, I do not, I'm not gonna go into why, if that's a question you're asking this is so the wrong blog for you.
"In the excerpt immediately following that statement, you're linking twice to Prison Planet, Alex Jones' website."
I link to a lot of websites that have questionable information but also contain valid information, all the time. I have enough respect for my visitors to distinguish what is bs and what is not. If they can't, they should go read a few books instead of internet blogs.
"Heh, nice one, but I'm not making a positive case for Obama. I don't "believe in Obama". I believe that he is the President-Elect of the United States. And I believe in the possibility of a positive future for humanity,"
Ok let's say you're not full of shit here for a second, you at least link those two, and come across as believing in Obama, and for me, to place that trust in politics is just absurd.
"I'm just talking specifically about the ones your citing as sources of material for the posts you are making."
That is a big assumption, those people are not "my sources", they are admittedly questionable folks who have some valid as well as questionable points concerning Obama and politics in general. My source is my own mind and if someone can't see that the Obama selection was BS well, then agree to disagree.
"In one case, Webster Tarpley, in the other Alex Jones/Prison Planet, both cases that apparently got through your "BS filter", despite the obvious commercial nature of their interests and spreading such propaganda."
That is your assumption that this material is propaganda, I say most of mainstream media and what comes out of politicians mouthes is propaganda, quite the difference of starting position huh? "Ideas are toys" means that a lot of sites I link are just not gonna give you the "truth", you know why? Cause most websites don't :p.
"This is the same BS filter that accepts the hypnosis theory of Obama's oratorial success, whatever its particular merit, based on theories about speech, that, no matter how much research you do about them, still boil down to just somebody's opinion expressed on the internet."
Errr, wrong again. After all you're blabla about openmindedness and consciousness you discard Hypnosis as "somebody's opinion on the internet" lol. Amazing and predictable at the same time. Hypnosis is a technique, I have hypnotized people, I have been hypnotized and the "opinion expressed on the internet" is showing how you BS filter out the existence of hypnosis and a blatant filtering out of that part of my post. So tell you what, start reading on the topic before you blurt out assumptions, you can go to the library, if the internet bothers you so much. Your belief on the matter is irrelevant if you know nothing about it.
"In this regard, it would become difficult not to subject other speakers, like Alex Jones, whose website you have linked to as I have cited, who screams at the top of his lungs to get his points across, and scares alot of people into believing alot of scary things he apparently doesn't feel could be talked about in a less sensational manner."
If a corrupt system doesn't make you passionate I don't know what will. But I don't "have to" defend Alex Jones just cause I link him. I've linked all kinds of crazy shit on this blog :p And I've disagreed with Alex Jones in many posts on this blog too, specifically about positive future possibilities he was denying.
"So, maybe Obama speaks in a driven, perhpas hypnotic way, perhaps this is even true. I don't see how that makes him anything more than a highly effective public speaker. The only way you can make the leap forward in belief that he "is the one to implement fascism" as you have asserted, is to make assumptions about future events that you simply cannot really know are going to occur."
A highly effective public speaker? Oh really? When I listen to a politician, I'd like him to say what he's actually gonna do and expect him not to turn half of those around during the campaign, I expect him to not blurt out empty symbols like change and hope, and a better tomorrow, and other empty language. This doesn't make him an effective speaker to me, but a typical politician.
A typical politician. I guess a lot of people forgot that after the fear-based politics of the last 8 years, but Obama is just a typical smooth talking politician.
"And, so it all falls into the category of speculation, you see. I've read articles that claim Obama's advisors to be wonderful geniuses and I've read articles that claim that they are reptilian alien Satanists, it's all on the internet, so you can say anything you want and provide a link to something that 'backs it up'. To argue the "facts" in this manner becomes a nonsensical and pointless exercise. Yet, you state that "I deal in facts, ideas and truth, specifically not in beliefs." But you are basing your posts, specifically in those two cases, but there are quite a few more, on this same way of sourcing, providing links to speculative musings posted on the internet. You even admit in this thread the validity of challenging these sources."
Again, "believe nothing" means that I link sites that I find interesting, and I deal in probabilities not in absolutes, is literally in the disclaimer in the blog info. Literally. I don't know what can be more obvious. Your biggest problem, besides confusing ideas with facts is that you disagree with what I suggest here and that I'm not on the hope-train.
"Again, you say that you "deal in facts, ideas, and truth, specifically not in beliefs" but your making the assertion that "Obama is the one to implement fascism", now how to you square that? How does that assertion fall into the category of "facts, ideas, and truth" and not into the category of "beliefs"."
Err, speculation falls in the category of ideas :p Ok? Beliefs are the things one is emotionally attached to and does not see the other side of, I've seen the other side of Obama, and I continue to check it out, and think it's pretty damn stupid. I also think people defending him or attacking all criticism of him fall in that category.
"By its nature it is a predicition about about the future, and a bold and very important one. How's the saying go - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And you are making assertions about the future which cannot possibly be known by you at the present time. And its not like your making a sportsbook for next week's betting lines, you're making very marked claims that would presumably effect the lives of the entire human race in profound and troubling ways, and could lead people to take some pretty drastic actions if they were to take what you say as "fact"."
LOL, if some people wanna take "drastic actions" because they read something on this or any blog that's their ignorant problem, I expect people to think for themselves, the ones that don't have no business here. And the generality of my "weird" posts should "scare" away the simple folk that strand on this site by accident. People are responsible for themselves.
"Thankfully, I think most people who would come across your blog can probably squeeze out of the teet of your rhetoric about "only dealing in facts, etc." the milky. cloudy level of 'reality' and 'fact' that your speculative excesses have brought you into in your posts on these subjects. On the other hand, some might not, and perhaps that is something that matters to you, or perhaps it is not. I would guess that it is not."
No, again, believe nothing and ideas are toys in the header kinda make clear what's going on here. If people wanna ignore the blog info that's one thing, but the header entirely too? That is their "ignor-ance" and something I am not responsible for.
"I just hope that not too many folks out there are taking these statements as objective fact, which is what the claims you have made in your response to my comment would seem to suggest is your position"
Not really, assumptions again, and hey you're "hoping" that simple people don't take what I say as fact. Simple people don't stick around here too long, it's too weird for them.
"All sense of a possibility for positive meaning is rejected and torn away and we are left with a chaos of confusion and furious opposition to the world that surrounds us. In a sense, this makes us sick, not in the sense of feeling empty, but of being disgusted by the world we have known - this is the "Nausea" Sartre desscribes in his work of the same name. It is only when this state of being is dynamically overcome by the positive construction of a newer and fuller sense of reality that Nietzsche's ubermensch is able to reach that next level. It is a tragedy that some will find themselves stuck in a place where they reject all notions of the possibility of positive change occuring both in the world outside themselves, and, antecedent to that feeling, at a deeper level, the world inside themselves."
Man, this is quite the frustrated overgeneralization.
"Am I suggesting that Obama can bring about such positive change all by himslelf, or even as a direct result of anything he might achieve? Not likely, but I would suggest that a renewed sense of hope has come over the American psyche as the result of his election, and this opens up possibilities for the future that seemed unlikely just a few months ago. Of course, I am just speculating now, by my own admission, but I hope that its food for thought."
Well obviously, too bad it's UNFOUNDED hope though, most Obama supporters don't know the men surrounding him, his voting record, his oil profits, etc etc, it's all been said too many freaking times and guess what, none of these are adressed by you, except that you read the men behind him are geniuses/satanists - wow, you listed two extremes. Awesome... How about the facts about the men, what they've done before, what they're already responsible of. What ideological think tanks they're a part of. No nevermind that, cause Obama "might" mean some kind of "change".
"Feel free to omit that last paragraph if you feel that my "BS" is leaking into the text there. Actually you can obviously do whatever you want with the whole post, it is pretty long, and, like I said, its your blog, but I think I made a decent attempt to respectfully and politely respond. Thanks"
You can't ommitt parts of a comment, it's the whole very long thing or nothing. Yup, you baffled me by this response by your relative politeness, so kudos for that at least. Yet you don't touch on the "facts" that make Obama and the men behind him actually questionable as anyone who can't handle the criticism can't, you only touch on what is questionable to me too so I'm rather underwhelmed by your many over-generalizing statements, and stand by my posts. Which btw, will continue. So agree to disagree if you have such a different view and please stop wasting my time about this. Peace.
"I believe humanity has the potential for a positive future, I gather that you do not, or, if you do, that future is something different than what is being manifest in the present time. Keep tilting at windmills." Jack
Oh another bliss bunny on my hands that believes that his delusions will make everything right and make all the bad things go away.
You keep chasing those pipe-dreams and see how fast they will "manifest". "Believing" is your main problem indeed.
You know how useful your believing and manifesting will be about Obama? About as useful as it would have been with Bush.
I'd say I more respect for a positive future than you by at least staying a little grounded in reality. But keep enjoying your mainstream media propaganda.
Post a Comment