06-10-2009, 02:26 AM
Thanks, David and Magda.
All of that which you say I did discover.
Magda's explanation of the spot-on nature of the satire is, well, spot on. There's a lot of that about these days and sometimes satire is indeed good enough to be mistaken for reality. I've even seen a lot of commentary on discussion boards along the lines of "didn't you recognize the satire?!" when you call out someone on their BS, and much of what deep political investigators is then turned immoebiously into an argument.
The reference in question comes generally at about 12:30 into the video "In Lies We Trust" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8674401787208020885# and specifically at about the 13:30 mark in which the development of political substitutes for war and the creation of an enemy you don't have to send tens of divisions against, or nuke, is good for society. An old philosophy, to be sure, but some of it sounded suspiciously similar to four pronouncements in the recent past: a) a 1988 document created by a committee chaired by John Deutch of the CIA and some fellow named Zelikow; b) two pronouncements by Zbigniew Brzezinski (one of which is in PD Scott's book "The Road to 9/11"), and C) the PNAC document that spoke (like at least one other) of "a new Pearl Harbor").
The narrator in the film is Len Horowitz. I haven't yet finished the entire 150-minute video. I stopped right there because, lately, I've wanted to be more assured that I'd done some fact-checking so that when I put forth a source I'm comfortable with its research quality. You can't be calling out others on poor argument or support when your own needs repair.
My question, then, is re-phrased:
Why would someone like Horowitz put forth a quote from a document that some time ago was theorized and then proven to be a hoax?
I'll go back and continue the video and see the extent to which his argument ends up being pivotally based on the "Report From Iron Mountain".
All of that which you say I did discover.
Magda's explanation of the spot-on nature of the satire is, well, spot on. There's a lot of that about these days and sometimes satire is indeed good enough to be mistaken for reality. I've even seen a lot of commentary on discussion boards along the lines of "didn't you recognize the satire?!" when you call out someone on their BS, and much of what deep political investigators is then turned immoebiously into an argument.
The reference in question comes generally at about 12:30 into the video "In Lies We Trust" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8674401787208020885# and specifically at about the 13:30 mark in which the development of political substitutes for war and the creation of an enemy you don't have to send tens of divisions against, or nuke, is good for society. An old philosophy, to be sure, but some of it sounded suspiciously similar to four pronouncements in the recent past: a) a 1988 document created by a committee chaired by John Deutch of the CIA and some fellow named Zelikow; b) two pronouncements by Zbigniew Brzezinski (one of which is in PD Scott's book "The Road to 9/11"), and C) the PNAC document that spoke (like at least one other) of "a new Pearl Harbor").
The narrator in the film is Len Horowitz. I haven't yet finished the entire 150-minute video. I stopped right there because, lately, I've wanted to be more assured that I'd done some fact-checking so that when I put forth a source I'm comfortable with its research quality. You can't be calling out others on poor argument or support when your own needs repair.
My question, then, is re-phrased:
Why would someone like Horowitz put forth a quote from a document that some time ago was theorized and then proven to be a hoax?
I'll go back and continue the video and see the extent to which his argument ends up being pivotally based on the "Report From Iron Mountain".
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"