Labels

[Jan Klimkowski]

C'mon Charles, don't scare the newbies away. :o

Unfortunately for you guys - I can't be scared away. ; )

Marlene - good for you.

I echo all the welcomes, in their various forms, from the founders of DPF and from members.

Marlene -the rest of this post is about forum history, and is not personally about you. I sense you are a strong person, so please indulge us, ignore us, and carry on contributing here at DPF.

OK guys 'n gals - how pure is pure?

We do not tolerate "Lone Nutters" at DPF, because the single gunman theory is demonstrably false. If people want to discuss LN, there are hundreds of thousands of other places to waste their collective time perpetuating sterile nonsense and lies.

DPF is a place for informed and meaningful discussion of deep political ideas.

The founders (and mods) all have different tolerances and different boiling points.

Personally, I loathe attempts to impose sloppy thinking to shackle debate, so I will challenge Jeffrey Orling every time he defines Gladio in a lazy fashion which is unsupported by the known facts and lacks any coherent deep political thinking. That's one of my twitches.

Charles' boiling points in the JFK arena are clear to all those who have spent time on DPF.

Other founders have different degrees of patience and tolerance.

Which is why we founders have agreed a structure of majority voting on key issues where we are likely to have different positions.

Where members persistently post unsupported nonsense or behave in a Sunsteinian fashion, the founders have proven time and again that we will vote to ban them - no matter how large their reputation in the research world.

But we also want DPF to be a welcoming place, where researchers can share and explore their hypotheses and their work with the knowledge accumulated over decades by committed and passionate researchers.

To use a stupid label, the "Lone Nut lie" will not be debated on DPF. But we are not a church, where compliance with the sacred texts is obligatory and any deviance represents heresy.

For example, Charles Drago and George Michael Evica's Sponsor - Facilitator - Mechanic model is a fantastic means of examining deep political events. With much humility, I have used it to attempt speculative analyses of historical events such as the assassination of Loyalism's King Rat.

It is a great model, which shines stark light into the most impenetrable of crannies.

But it is, ultimately, a framework. Albeit a fine one.

My rule of thumb is that any member referencing the Sponsor - Facilitator - Mechanic model should show Charles the respect of truly understanding the framework, and exploring its implications rigorously. But it is not the only model. If a researcher chooses to apply another deep political model, they are free to do so. Just as Charles and others are free to point out any limitations they may identify in comparing that deep political model with S-F-M.

How pure is pure?

How zealous should we be?

My own view is that Charles' original response to Marlene was too zealous, but we - the founders - let it through. There are subsequent posts by Charles that we have not approved as we consider them too strong.

I will not speak for my friends, my fellow DPF founders - Charles, David, Dawn and Magda.

I will speak for myself. My own view is that raising the collective awareness of deep political matters is the single most important task. Rigorously slaying false histories is a close second.

Charles asked:

How much pride should RFK and MLK and the millions who since have perished on the killing fields of Asia and the Middle East take in our great accomplishments?

"Take PRIDE"?

In WHAT???"

In the spirit of both / and:

Charles' argument is unassailable.

AND

There was no need to say such words, in such aggressive fashion, to Marlene.

And that, dear members, is the core of our dilemma.