21-05-2012, 12:27 PM
This thread is rapidly approaching the points of diminishing returns, self-parody, and self-defeat.
"Cinque" and Fetzer have been exposed as agent provocateur and cognitively impaired pseudo-intellectual respectively. The former represents enemy action, the latter a profound and, for some of us, deeply affecting tragedy. Overkill says more about us than it does them.
So too has the EF's suicidal pacifism in the midst of war been exposed for the manner in which it further's the enemy's prime agenda: maintenance of doubt in the face of certainty.
Two observations by Don Jeffries do warrant responses, however.
In regard to the JFK assassination, we are not engaged in "debate." As I have written and stated on numerous occasions: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence who does not conclude that JFK was killed by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. To "debate" the conspiracy (truth)/non-conspiracy (lie) "positions" is to play directly into the enemy's hand -- the enemy who has never sought to eliminate doubt and who depends upon doubt to preserve and protect its power.
If Mr. Jeffries is more interested in discussion than in resolution, then he is part of the problem and not the solution.
If Mr. Jeffries reads the DPF thoroughly and finds nothing but back-patting here, then ESL courses are in order for him.
"Colby" and "Von Pein" are hydras -- multi-headed entities assigned to disrupt,distract, disinform, preserve doubt, provide illusions of academic and intellectual respectability for the Lie, and otherwise serve the enemy and its agendas. Lamson is a wanker with a darkroom.
The only honorable, survivable response to their attacks is to expose them as such. To support the illusion of a level playing field for their lies and our truth is to bring a knife to a tank battle.
If my "thought process" as expressed above "frightens" Mr. Jeffries, then he should seek Conscientious Objector status in this war and go to the rear to roll bandages.
"Cinque" and Fetzer have been exposed as agent provocateur and cognitively impaired pseudo-intellectual respectively. The former represents enemy action, the latter a profound and, for some of us, deeply affecting tragedy. Overkill says more about us than it does them.
So too has the EF's suicidal pacifism in the midst of war been exposed for the manner in which it further's the enemy's prime agenda: maintenance of doubt in the face of certainty.
Two observations by Don Jeffries do warrant responses, however.
Don Jeffries Wrote:I know you all love to refer to the EF as a "swamp," but imho it provides for the most wide ranging discussions you find on this subject presently on the internet. Sure, we could ban Colby, Lamson, DVP and others, but what purpose would that serve? To quote an episode of the Twilight Zone, "When everyone is beautiful, no one will be." Without wrong, there is no right. How often can one debate those he almost completely agrees with? What exactly would there be to discuss? At what point do you grow tired of patting each other on the back?
In regard to the JFK assassination, we are not engaged in "debate." As I have written and stated on numerous occasions: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence who does not conclude that JFK was killed by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. To "debate" the conspiracy (truth)/non-conspiracy (lie) "positions" is to play directly into the enemy's hand -- the enemy who has never sought to eliminate doubt and who depends upon doubt to preserve and protect its power.
If Mr. Jeffries is more interested in discussion than in resolution, then he is part of the problem and not the solution.
If Mr. Jeffries reads the DPF thoroughly and finds nothing but back-patting here, then ESL courses are in order for him.
"Colby" and "Von Pein" are hydras -- multi-headed entities assigned to disrupt,distract, disinform, preserve doubt, provide illusions of academic and intellectual respectability for the Lie, and otherwise serve the enemy and its agendas. Lamson is a wanker with a darkroom.
The only honorable, survivable response to their attacks is to expose them as such. To support the illusion of a level playing field for their lies and our truth is to bring a knife to a tank battle.
Don Jeffries Wrote:Charles Drago may want to figuratively "burn down" the EF, and probably doesn't see the frightening thought process behind his declaration, but when someone wants to take away YOUR right to express your views, I promise I'll be there to defend you, too.
If my "thought process" as expressed above "frightens" Mr. Jeffries, then he should seek Conscientious Objector status in this war and go to the rear to roll bandages.
Charles Drago
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene