+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-19.html)
+--- Thread: The unmentionable - the 'other' Forum (/thread-1922.html)
The unmentionable - the 'other' Forum - Peter Lemkin - 10-08-2009
Len Colby was looking at this thread today [Guest
Viewing Thread - The unmentionable - the 'other' Forum - 1897016xxxx.user.veloxzone.com.br]
and must have had a good laugh at all who he chased away and won't any longer do battle with him/it. Some here are IMO a bit too smug about the situation vis-a-vis here v. there [or other places]. One has to do battle where the enemy is....and not just seek peace in one's own little enclave - as nice as it seems, and as peaceful as it is, granted. Anyway, Nathaniel, Jack and I have stuck in our picket-pins and are fighting, albeit without much other back-up.
The unmentionable - the 'other' Forum - Jan Klimkowski - 10-08-2009
The disinformation entity is actually like a rash.
A form of venereal disease.
It's nasty.
It's unsightly.
It gets everywhere.
It has a "Me Me Me" mentality, always demanding that one's attention is turned away from the important to the irrelevant.
The troll construct asks for proof that it is a troll.
Maybe it isn't a troll.
Maybe, like the crab louse, pthirus pubis, it is in fact a parasite.
The unmentionable - the 'other' Forum - Mark Stapleton - 11-08-2009
Peter Lemkin Wrote:Len Colby was looking at this thread today [Guest
Viewing Thread - The unmentionable - the 'other' Forum - 1897016xxxx.user.veloxzone.com.br]
and must have had a good laugh at all who he chased away and won't any longer do battle with him/it. Some here are IMO a bit too smug about the situation vis-a-vis here v. there [or other places]. One has to do battle where the enemy is....and not just seek peace in one's own little enclave - as nice as it seems, and as peaceful as it is, granted. Anyway, Nathaniel, Jack and I have stuck in our picket-pins and are fighting, albeit without much other back-up.
It's a waste of time, Peter.
The unmentionable - the 'other' Forum - Myra Bronstein - 11-08-2009
Peter Lemkin Wrote:...Ah, well I won't sully this Forum further.....but must say I find the lack of support there, from any here, disheartening and more than a bit of letdown.
Peter,
You're well within your rights to feel let down. But I can't imagine that you'd be surprised that most people who left a forum for the precise reasons you're citing now don't want ongoing involvement with it. If you're not ready to move on, fine. But it's not a betrayal to you that others have opted to move on.
Myra
The unmentionable - the 'other' Forum - Peter Presland - 11-08-2009
Peter,
I for one am grateful for your posts here. Lots of useful insightful stuff. But surely you can see that motivations for membership of DPF are likely to be diverse. We probably share a broad range of beliefs and attitudes about the hidden 'Deep State' structures, initiatives and motives that shape the world (the odd spook lurker excluded of course), but my guess is that agreeing on a clear set of actions to 'do something about it' and affect major change is a different matter entirely.
I can only speak for myself but, in this brave new 21st century world we inhabit and with great reluctance turning conventional wisdom on its head, I am gradually arriving at the conclusion that, Knowledge has largely to be accepted as impotence if I am not to drive myself mad. Maybe its a function of my age, but that's the way it is.
It seems to me that the prospect of affecting substantive change by coordinated action hovers around zero to non-existent. The moment you start to organise (if you are knowledgeable, capable and serious that is - ie a genuine prospective threat to established power structures), you are infiltrated, co-opted, threatened, discredited, find your career at a dead-end, suicided, etc etc etc. Some combination of all of that. (in fact from your posts you probably know more about being on the receiving end of covert shut-T-F-up activities by establishment interests that I - although I do have some myself).
So me? - I confine myself to consistently reading more historical stuff in a week than your average politico probably does in a year and posting about this and that all over the place. Most readers of it probably think I AM mad but frankly that's their problem and I don't give a sh*t anyway. Some of it may just rub off on the odd inquisitive individual since I do go out of my way to be reasonable and civil.
As for getting involved in exchanges with the likes of Len Colby; apart from maybe seeking to sharpen one's debating skills, it's a waste of time IMHO.
The unmentionable - the 'other' Forum - Peter Lemkin - 11-08-2009
Peter Presland Wrote:Peter,
I for one am grateful for your posts here. Lots of useful insightful stuff. But surely you can see that motivations for membership of DPF are likely to be diverse. We probably share a broad range of beliefs and attitudes about the hidden 'Deep State' structures, initiatives and motives that shape the world (the odd spook lurker excluded of course), but my guess is that agreeing on a clear set of actions to 'do something about it' and affect major change is a different matter entirely.
I can only speak for myself but, in this brave new 21st century world we inhabit and with great reluctance turning conventional wisdom on its head, I am gradually arriving at the conclusion that, Knowledge has largely to be accepted as impotence if I am not to drive myself mad. Maybe its a function of my age, but that's the way it is.
It seems to me that the prospect of affecting substantive change by coordinated action hovers around zero to non-existent. The moment you start to organise (if you are knowledgeable, capable and serious that is - ie a genuine prospective threat to established power structures), you are infiltrated, co-opted, threatened, discredited, find your career at a dead-end, suicided, etc etc etc. Some combination of all of that. (in fact from your posts you probably know more about being on the receiving end of covert shut-T-F-up activities by establishment interests that I - although I do have some myself).
So me? - I confine myself to consistently reading more historical stuff in a week than your average politico probably does in a year and posting about this and that all over the place. Most readers of it probably think I AM mad but frankly that's their problem and I don't give a sh*t anyway. Some of it may just rub off on the odd inquisitive individual since I do go out of my way to be reasonable and civil.
As for getting involved in exchanges with the likes of Len Colby; apart from maybe seeking to sharpen one's debating skills, it's a waste of time IMHO.
No, I understand the positions of others, I'm just in a low mood personally at the moment and the founders here were a break-off/away from that unmentionable. I try not to debate with Len, long ago tiring of his tricks. I have him on ignore. Let's see Jack was put on 'invisible' this morning by guess who; Craig sends me hate PMs about every post or every 90 minutes, whichever comes first; but there was a moment [lost for now] when if some on that other forum would only speak-up [many are afriad of a few bullies] it might have been able to really make some positive changes. As it is the food fight continues.......with some govt. paid for 'food', perhaps.
The unmentionable - the 'other' Forum - Charles Drago - 11-08-2009
Peter, et al,
The fatal mistake made by those who would engage this "Colby" entity -- hereinafter The Channel, insofar as the cover identity channels the words of, in my studied estimation, at least three dedicated intelligence assets/officers -- occurs when they speak to "him" instead of about "him."
This being noted, the other forum is a rigged game. When one attempts to speak substantively about The Channel by providing proof of "his" sinister components and functions, moderators and administrators there will have none of it.
The selective nature of this policy of the other forum is revealed often. Just today, its "good cop" owner has referred to John McAdam as a "disinformation agent." Which McAdam surely is.
The owner has done so because he "believes" his characterization of McAdam to be accurate (stated), and because he acknowledges that it is our duty to expose the enemy whenever and wherever possible (implied).
Yet by the very rules the owner has established and continues to enforce blindly, he would have been prohibited from doing his duty if McAdam had been a member of the other forum.
Peter, we've outed "Colby" here on the DPF, and we'll continue to find, out, and otherwise expose "his" ilk.
But understand this single inescapable fact: The worst people on the planet get a "W" every time one of the good guys engages one of their channels.
To engage is to dignify.
To expose is to destroy.
Charlie
The unmentionable - the 'other' Forum - Jan Klimkowski - 11-08-2009
Charles Drago Wrote:To engage is to dignify.
To expose is to destroy.
Eloquence in the service of truth.
The unmentionable - the 'other' Forum - Peter Lemkin - 11-08-2009
Charles Drago Wrote:Peter, et al,
The fatal mistake made by those who would engage this "Colby" entity -- hereinafter The Channel, insofar as the cover identity channels the words of, in my studied estimation, at least three dedicated intelligence assets/officers -- occurs when they speak to "him" instead of about "him."
This being noted, the other forum is a rigged game. When one attempts to speak substantively about The Channel by providing proof of "his" sinister components and functions, moderators and administrators there will have none of it.
The selective nature of this policy of the other forum is revealed often. Just today, its "good cop" owner has referred to John McAdam as a "disinformation agent." Which McAdam surely is.
The owner has done so because he "believes" his characterization of McAdam to be accurate (stated), and because he acknowledges that it is our duty to expose the enemy whenever and wherever possible (implied).
Yet by the very rules the owner has established and continues to enforce blindly, he would have been prohibited from doing his duty if McAdam had been a member of the other forum.
Peter, we've outed "Colby" here on the DPF, and we'll continue to find, out, and otherwise expose "his" ilk.
But understand this single inescapable fact: The worst people on the planet get a "W" every time one of the good guys engages one of their channels.
To engage is to dignify.
To expose is to destroy.
Charlie
I agree there is a logical (sic) problem where disinformation agents can be identified off the other forum, but the rules, as written, don't allow identification of one ON the forum. This is mostly what the 'intent of a poster' thread there is about and the reason Jack's post was made invisible today - and most of you got into hot water with the PTB there. I'd like to see that change. I may be possible. It may not be. Certain persons there, even if not disinfo agents are just such blockers of a thread moving forward [trolls] that that alone one would think would be enough - and has been in the past for a few....we will see.....or I'll eventually give-up, as it is not the same place it was a few years ago....
The unmentionable - the 'other' Forum - Jack White - 11-08-2009
Interestingly, one of my posts about Colby has been made
"invisible" by Burton because I called him the "Colby entity".
Also, as a nuisance factor, I am now required to log in every day.
Jack