Labels

[Gordon Gray]

The vast majority of people under 60 have little or no recollection of JFK's murder, and less interest. It would be wise to try and pique that interest IMO, not shun it. As the priest said, when asked about his hopes for the 21 century, " Oh I'm always hopeful, just not very optimistic."

[Lauren Johnson]

Jan, a great post summing up many issues.

A couple of days ago, I stumbled into my earliest post. I looked at the date, and it had taken me 14 months get up to the magic number five. In those days, this place was anything but welcoming and also I realized I had a lot to learn. So I just read the archives and laid low. But you all had just left the Ejection Fraction, and were pretty devastated. "Cry havoc, and loose the dogs of war." I recall my first or second post -- I can't find it -- I vaguely remembered you ripping my heart out of my chest. OK, I might be exaggerating just a tad.

Moving on, a suggestion. I the mods should write up a guide to deep politics for the newbies. Telling them to 'Read the archives, dipshit,' gets old. I know I personally would appreciate. Take the sentence below:

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.

The subtext is, 'Figure it out.' It ain't easy and there is a lot of nuance.

Another example, when you use the phrase, Power and Control, there is a LOT to unpack there. Subtext: 'Read the archives, stupid.' That's like reading the Mishnah.

Cheers.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Jan, a great post summing up many issues.

A couple of days ago, I stumbled into my earliest post. I looked at the date, and it had taken me 14 months get up to the magic number five. In those days, this place was anything but welcoming and also I realized I had a lot to learn. So I just read the archives and laid low. But you all had just left the Ejection Fraction, and were pretty devastated. "Cry havoc, and loose the dogs of war." I recall my first or second post -- I can't find it -- I vaguely remembered you ripping my heart out of my chest. OK, I might be exaggerating just a tad.

Moving on, a suggestion. I the mods should write up a guide to deep politics for the newbies. Telling them to 'Read the archives, dipshit,' gets old. I know I personally would appreciate. Take the sentence below:

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.

The subtext is, 'Figure it out.' It ain't easy and there is a lot of nuance.

Another example, when you use the phrase, Power and Control, there is a LOT to unpack there. Subtext: 'Read the archives, stupid.' That's like reading the Mishnah.

Cheers.

Lauren - thank you.

You get it. :peace:

[Charles Drago]

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.

Jan,

I find your words to be eminently reasonable and admirably direct.

I'm especially grateful for your willingness to state that, in your opinion, I was too "aggressive" with Marlene.

Of course I beg to differ. Strongly.

My choice of words was deeply considered and made in a calm state of mind. My tone represents a tactical decision reached in order to A) draw maximum attention to a sentiment that, in my view, reflects a long-standing and fatal weakness within the JFK assassination research community in particular in throughout deep politics research in general; it reflects what I see as a wide-spread and probably fatal narcissism within our ranks -- and I refrain from naming names in this instance out of respect for you, Jan; and B) offer an example of the passion that must fuel, balance and accompany to public view aspects of our work if we are to have even the slightest chance to win this war.

Please note that Marlene has yet to answer my questions directly.

(It seems that there's a lot of the "it's OK to ignore Charles, a lot of DPF correspondents do it" behavior going around lately. Now where on earth might such encouragement have originated? But I digress.)

Your openness deserves to be returned in-kind: I am immensely displeased with the moderators' decision not to publish my follow-ups on this thread. Your decision has contributed to the posting, by a moderator, of a wholly off-target interpretation of my original thoughts on this matter -- one that I am not being allowed to clarify.

All of this being noted, I restate for what I hope will be the public record that I appreciate your thoughts, accept them in the spirit in which they were offered, and hope that this suitable-for-public-exposure dialogue will continue.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Jan,

I find your words to be eminently reasonable and admirably direct.

I'm especially grateful for your willingness to state that, in your opinion, I was too "aggressive" with Marlene.

Of course I beg to differ. Strongly.

(snip)

Your openness deserves to be returned in-kind: I am immensely displeased with the moderators' decision not to publish my follow-ups on this thread. Your decision has contributed to the posting, by a moderator, of a wholly off-target interpretation of my original thoughts on this matter -- one that I am not being allowed to clarify.

All of this being noted, I restate for what I hope will be the public record that I appreciate your thoughts, accept them in the spirit in which they were offered, and hope that this suitable-for-public-exposure dialogue will continue.

Charles - thank you.

You are welcome to clarify the meaning of your response to Marlene.

As long as there is no pissing match here at DPF.

Jan

[Lauren Johnson]

in his search for serenity.

[Charles Drago]

Jan,

I find your words to be eminently reasonable and admirably direct.

I'm especially grateful for your willingness to state that, in your opinion, I was too "aggressive" with Marlene.

Of course I beg to differ. Strongly.

(snip)

Your openness deserves to be returned in-kind: I am immensely displeased with the moderators' decision not to publish my follow-ups on this thread. Your decision has contributed to the posting, by a moderator, of a wholly off-target interpretation of my original thoughts on this matter -- one that I am not being allowed to clarify.

All of this being noted, I restate for what I hope will be the public record that I appreciate your thoughts, accept them in the spirit in which they were offered, and hope that this suitable-for-public-exposure dialogue will continue.

Charles - thank you.

You are welcome to clarify the meaning of your response to Marlene.

As long as there is no pissing match here at DPF.

Jan

Jan,

I'll take you up on your offer by responding to Magda's misinterpretation below:

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

Charles loves to scare the newbies away. And he is also very right.

Yes he is but it is not Marlene's personal responsibility to have done what Charles hasn't managed to do either.

A) I never claimed to have fulfilled my responsibility to effect justice in this case, and B) I did not and would never presume to state or imply that Marlene should be singled out for being part of the very large group of failed JFK activists of which I've been a member for decades.

I eagerly await the results of my urine test.

[Jan Klimkowski]

I eagerly await the results of my urine test.

You passed that piss test.... :mexican:

[Tracy Riddle]

All thinking people should be welcome here, which is why we don't accept lone-nutters and government trolls. Otherwise we should not be enforcers of orthodoxy, of any kind.

[Marlene Zenker]

Whether Charles was right or wrong in posting that response to me - I think he is right in what he said. I didn't state what I meant clearly enough - as I said I am proud of those who seek truth, who aren't afraid to stand up to the "powers that be" and who try to educate others about what is really going on in the world.

Thanks to all of you...

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.