Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: The World's Most Important Political Prisoner

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Lateer View Post
    Mr. Guyatt: Your point about the elites is well-taken--if the elites were firmly and unquestionably in control, then they would be sitting around and inventing new and good stuff, as did George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc.

    As far as I know, Washington and Jefferson didn't create any false-flag events nor did they jail anybody without a good reason, nor did they make anybody "disappear."

    Did Stalin and Hitler do their stuff because they were in a weak position or because they were in a strong position?

    Let's not forget that the USSR went down in disgrace and, of course, Hitler met his destruction in WWII, while the US Government has survived pretty well for 230 odd years.

    I guess I have to come down on the side of weakness---i.e. the establishment elites are threatened, hence the relatively desperate acts against "Russian moles", Assange, Epstein, etc.

    James Lateer
    James, Alastair Crooke, a former senior officer of Britain's SIS has just written an article that speaks of the elites in this respect - at least from the European perspective. The wholly destructive neoliberal ideology they adhere to, and which we have lived through these past 40 odd years, is fracturing. I rather suspect that similar pressures are extant in the US too.

    I'm posting his article below:


    The New Heresy That Threatens the Entire European Continent

    Alastair Crooke
    September 16, 2019


    © Photo: Flickr / UK Parliament


    In all the hullabaloo of Brexit and its associated parliamentary infighting, little noticed has been how Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson are attempting to change the very nature of the UK political landscape. Of course, the Brexit angst is making the attempt to leverage a strategic political shift much more visible, and more acute. Yet, actually the changes are not wholly, or even predominantly Brexit related, but reflect underlying tectonic plates clashing.
    The point here is that the chaos in London is no parochial British, Brexit affair. It reflects something wider at work. Recognition of ‘plate’ movement already has been politically leveraged in the US (by Trump), and almost certainly the similar symptoms will present themselves across Europe too. These symptoms are here now (though they may not always be recognised as such, as one commentator already has noted – see later).
    “The last Conservative MP in the seat of Newcastle-under-Lyme was Charles Donaldson-Hudson”, Daniel Capurro writes. “A JP [a local Judge] and member of the landed gentry, he held it from 1880 to 1885. Yet, when the autumn election finally arrives, Newcastle [a Labour bastion, ever since] will be one of the Tory party’s top target seats. The targeting of such seats is not the madness it might first appear. It is, in fact, part of Boris Johnson and his chief adviser Dominic Cummings’ masterplan for the future of the Conservative Party”.
    A little back-context is required: In the late 1990s, the then leader of the Labour Party started to move the Party away from its roots in the Trade Union and labour rights movement, towards a ‘Washington Consensus’, neo-liberal stance, as epitomised by Tony Blair (who was drawing on the then Clinton winning experience). Labour had begun to understand that the endorsement of Wall Street and the City of London was a perquisite for any return to Office, and that in any case, the factory-based politics of the past, in this shiny, new cosmopolitan world of the urban and suburban élite, simply would not propel the movement into power.
    Labour, at that moment, wished to become a typical Euro Centre-Left party, representing middle class voters who wanted to display their decency by voting for a party that espouses some, albeit quite restricted, notion of ‘social concern’.
    But, as the preoccupations of the élite, metropolitan consciousness turned more and more ‘globalist’-espousing ‘disadvantaged’ groups, such as ethnic minorities, women, and gender non-conformists, rather than show empathy for the stresses of ordinary working men and women (whom they came to regard with contempt, as Ludite backwoodsmen and racists), so the Party’s internal gap opened wide.
    This is the opening Cummings and Johnson have espied. The new demographics they believe, require rewriting the electoral landscape. Out is the Conservative electoral coalition of the recent past, which married urban and suburban social liberals with rural small-c conservatives (a marriage which was itself a cause of an internal tension, not dissimilar to that in the Labour Party – and as witnessed by the Tory 21 ‘Remainer’ rebels who were expelled from the Party). Centrism, in short, is no longer seen as advantageous. And, in comes a working-class, socially-conservative politics targeted at non-graduates in the Midlands and the North of England – i.e. at the Sixty-percenters as a whole.
    “In this viewing, an extraordinary array of Labour seats [most of whom voted Leave] from Wrexham and Wakefield to Stoke-on-Trent Central and North could tumble into the Tory column on election night, and send Mr Johnson into Downing Street with a commanding majority”, Capurro suggests. Yes, the price may involve the loss of Conservative seats in London and the South East, but in practice the former electoral prize contested by both the main parties – the urban middle class – is itself suffering stress from globalist dynamics, as it bifurcates into the truly rich élite, and a struggling, belt-tightening Middle Class.
    The Establishment élite sees the threat: This might – in the long game – end with the enthronement of the politics of the ‘deplorables’, and the eclipse (or ‘obsolescence’ in President Putin’s terminology) of liberalism.
    Hence the bitter counter-revolution being mounted by the Establishment in the UK Parliament and the media. And hence the deep Establishment distrust of Johnson, for although he may represent the epitome of Establishment in one sense, he has always tried to position himself as the archetypical ‘outsider’.
    The Northern working-class votes are those which Johnson wants to capture most dearly. Dominic Cummings knows from the ‘Leave’ campaign, and from Trump’s successes in US states not traditionally regarded as voting ‘Red’, that a focus on the culture ‘war’ – on issues such as transgender rights and ‘political correctness’ – can mobilise today’s voters, more than traditional family party affiliations. Cummings precisely intends to lever the toxicity of globalism not just with the ‘deplorables’, but with a Middle Class increasingly fearful of slipping into the abyss.
    There are many problems to this evolving contestation of prevalent liberal millenarianism. A major problem is much more subtle, and less amenable to solution, than just the outbreak of ‘culture war’ – and it applies to all western economies: How – in this post-heavy-industry era – to maintain large-scale employment particularly for those with low (or no) skills.
    Globalism unquestionably has contributed to the off-shoring of jobs to other parts of the globe, but the reality is that many of those jobs are not coming back ‘home’. They are assimilated elsewhere. They are lost for good.
    The ‘new normal’ being touted by the US Administration is one that is not particularly concerned to re-capture, and bring home, mundane manufacturing processes. It wants for the US, the ultra high-tech end of manufacturing mainly, or only. This, it views, will represent the commanding heights of the new economics. And this view evidently is orientated more towards the objective to maintain US hegemony, than rather than for concern for the welfare of the US people. Such an economy – even if it were feasible to achieve – concentrated in the ultra high-tech, would face the issue of the 20% of Americans who then would become ‘unnecessary’ – surplus to needs, as it were. Do we really want to go there …?
    Globalisation has had a great deal to do with this, but the decline of the factory-based economy in the West lies right at the very heart of our troubled political landscape (as Trump’s appeal to the ‘deplorables’ from a stance on the Nationalist-Right, rather than the globalist Left, strongly suggests).
    Thibault Muzergues, European director of the International Republican Institute, warns that a structural divorce between the people and their representatives is in play. This happens once state institutions are viewed as a brake to preserve a status quo that is already in dispute, and in crisis. In other words, the Establishment counter action, and its rhetorical flourishes (i.e. describing the prorogation of the UK parliament as (literally) a coup d’état) in order to facilitate the crushing of the threat of ‘deplorablism’, precisely sets the ground for more bitter internal European strife.
    “Some extol the unwavering will of the British leader [Johnson] to do what is necessary (within the limits of his constitutional rights, at least as long as the British courts will not block him) to put an end to the debate on Brexit by respecting the popular will … whilst others [in juxtaposition], praise the virtue of the [Italian] President for saving parliamentary democracy – in the face of the risk of a Salvini government … [coming to power].
    “In both cases we are confronted with a conflict between direct democracy and parliamentary democracy, but this is not necessarily what is played out in the minds of actors, let alone citizens. For them, it is not so much a crisis of the institutions; but rather that of a crisis around Brexit, or in the person of Matteo Salvini.
    “The problem is that the politicians in each camp (and with them their supporters) will be able to radically change their discourse on this question of legitimacy according to their own interests …
    “This is a very dangerous game because it prepares the excessive politicization of institutions in a context of polarization of debates, and their use for partisan ends only – which undermines their legitimacy a little more. Without these institutions to manage or even settle our political conflicts, there is little that separates us from civil war or, as Hobbes described almost four centuries ago, from bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all. The slope we are currently following is therefore necessarily dangerous.”
    But in comparing Johnson to Viktor Orban —as Austrian newspaper Der Standard did, with its London correspondent writing “Johnson and his henchmen clearly think Brexit is more important than democracy and the rule of law”; with Germany’s international public broadcaster DW calling “Boris Johnson, the UK dictator,” and Yascha Mounk in France’s Le Monde newspaper writing that suspending Parliament constituted the “most flagrant attack on democracy that Britain has ever known”, there is a distinct whiff of that old Viet Nam axiom of ‘destroying a village to ‘save’ a village’ metamorphosing into one of having a constitutionally legitimate British government overturned and destroyed, in order ‘to save democracy itself’ (and to save Britain from elections which might not produce the ‘correct’ outcome’).
    If populism blighted “the most entrenched of democracies,” said an editorial in Le Monde, it “would be terrible news for the entire continent.” Well … welcome to the new Grand Inquisition: Does the prisoner (Johnson) confess before the Holy Inquisition that Parliament was suspended for heretical motives; or will he deny it, and face being burnt at the stake?

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/ne...ean-continent/
    The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
    Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Guyatt View Post
    ......
    James, Alastair Crooke, a former senior officer of Britain's SIS has just written an article that speaks of the elites in this respect - at least from the European perspective. The wholly destructive neoliberal ideology they adhere to, and which we have lived through these past 40 odd years, is fracturing. I rather suspect that similar pressures are extant in the US too.

    I'm posting his article below:
    ........
    .....
    Longer, it seems, than "these past 40 odd years," and U.S. society "serves up" a much more diverse political class...more "self made" individuals who literally came from nothing. Is there a conservative party PM, aside from Major or May, for example, with a background of unconnectedness comparable to Bill Clinton's. Also, it does not appear that Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, or Richard Nixon were, as the popular phrase here describes it, "born on third base".

    IOW, it has been common of both major U.S. political parties to nominate candidates for the office of the presidency who are
    of working class families.
    There are many people who don`t know what real pressure is. Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple. - Barry Switzer

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...680-story.html
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/o...nd-empire.htmlOpinion
    The Malign Incompetence of the British Ruling Class
    With Brexit, the chumocrats who drew borders from India to Ireland are getting a taste of their own medicine.


    By Pankaj Mishra
    Mr. Mishra is the author, most recently, of “Age of Anger: A History of the Present.”


    Jan. 17, 2019
    Describing Britain’s calamitous exit from its Indian empire in 1947, the novelist Paul Scott wrote that in India the British “came to the end of themselves as they were” — that is, to the end of their exalted idea about themselves. Scott was among those shocked by how hastily and ruthlessly the British, who had ruled India for more than a century, condemned it to fragmentation and anarchy; how Louis Mountbatten, accurately described by the right-wing historian Andrew Roberts as a “mendacious, intellectually limited hustler,” came to preside, as the last British viceroy of India, over the destiny of some 400 million people.


    Britain’s rupture with the European Union is proving to be another act of moral dereliction by the country’s rulers. The Brexiteers, pursuing a fantasy of imperial-era strength and self-sufficiency, have repeatedly revealed their hubris, mulishness and ineptitude over the past two years.
    ...Such a pattern of egotistic and destructive behavior by the British elite flabbergasts many people today. But it was already manifest seven decades ago during Britain’s rash exit from India....
    ...
    Mountbatten, derided as “Master of Disaster” in British naval circles, was a representative member of a small group of upper- and middle-class British men from which the imperial masters of Asia and Africa were recruited. Abysmally equipped for their immense responsibilities, they were nevertheless allowed by Britain’s brute imperial power to blunder through the world — a “world of whose richness and subtlety,” as E.M. Forster wrote in “Notes on the English Character,” they could “have no conception.”....


    ....Forster blamed Britain’s political fiascos on its privately educated men, callow beneficiaries of the country’s elitist public school system. These eternal schoolboys whose “weight is out of all proportion” to their numbers are certainly overrepresented among Tories. They have today plunged Britain into its worst crisis, exposing its incestuous and self-serving ruling class like never before.


    From David Cameron, who recklessly gambled his country’s future on a referendum in order to isolate some whingers in his Conservative Party, to the opportunistic Boris Johnson, who jumped on the Brexit bandwagon to secure the prime ministerial chair once warmed by his role model Winston Churchill, and the top-hatted, theatrically retro Jacob Rees-Mogg, whose fund management company has set up an office within the European Union even as he vehemently scorns it, the British political class has offered to the world an astounding spectacle of mendacious, intellectually limited hustlers.
    .....
    Peter Janney's uncle was Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics who enlisted law partners Roswell Gilpatric and Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice "Tex" Moore, in a trade of 16 percent of Gen. Dyn. stock in exchange for Henry Crown and his Material Service Corp. of Chicago, headed by Byfield's Sherman Hotel group's Pat Hoy. The Crown family and partner Conrad Hilton next benefitted from TFX, at the time, the most costly military contract award in the history of the world. Obama was sponsored by the Crowns and Pritzkers. So was Albert Jenner Peter Janney has preferred to write of an imaginary CIA assassination of his surrogate mother, Mary Meyer, but not a word about his Uncle Frank.

  3. Default

    Welcome back Tom, are you still interested in discussing with me or did you leave the conversation?
    The most relevant literature regarding what happened since September 11, 2001 is George Orwell's "1984".

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Guyatt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by James Lateer View Post
    Mr. Guyatt: Your point about the elites is well-taken--if the elites were firmly and unquestionably in control, then they would be sitting around and inventing new and good stuff, as did George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc.

    As far as I know, Washington and Jefferson didn't create any false-flag events nor did they jail anybody without a good reason, nor did they make anybody "disappear."

    Did Stalin and Hitler do their stuff because they were in a weak position or because they were in a strong position?

    Let's not forget that the USSR went down in disgrace and, of course, Hitler met his destruction in WWII, while the US Government has survived pretty well for 230 odd years.

    I guess I have to come down on the side of weakness---i.e. the establishment elites are threatened, hence the relatively desperate acts against "Russian moles", Assange, Epstein, etc.

    James Lateer
    James, Alastair Crooke, a former senior officer of Britain's SIS has just written an article that speaks of the elites in this respect - at least from the European perspective. The wholly destructive neoliberal ideology they adhere to, and which we have lived through these past 40 odd years, is fracturing. I rather suspect that similar pressures are extant in the US too.

    I'm posting his article below:


    The New Heresy That Threatens the Entire European Continent

    Alastair Crooke
    September 16, 2019


    © Photo: Flickr / UK Parliament


    In all the hullabaloo of Brexit and its associated parliamentary infighting, little noticed has been how Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson are attempting to change the very nature of the UK political landscape. Of course, the Brexit angst is making the attempt to leverage a strategic political shift much more visible, and more acute. Yet, actually the changes are not wholly, or even predominantly Brexit related, but reflect underlying tectonic plates clashing.
    The point here is that the chaos in London is no parochial British, Brexit affair. It reflects something wider at work. Recognition of ‘plate’ movement already has been politically leveraged in the US (by Trump), and almost certainly the similar symptoms will present themselves across Europe too. These symptoms are here now (though they may not always be recognised as such, as one commentator already has noted – see later).
    “The last Conservative MP in the seat of Newcastle-under-Lyme was Charles Donaldson-Hudson”, Daniel Capurro writes. “A JP [a local Judge] and member of the landed gentry, he held it from 1880 to 1885. Yet, when the autumn election finally arrives, Newcastle [a Labour bastion, ever since] will be one of the Tory party’s top target seats. The targeting of such seats is not the madness it might first appear. It is, in fact, part of Boris Johnson and his chief adviser Dominic Cummings’ masterplan for the future of the Conservative Party”.
    A little back-context is required: In the late 1990s, the then leader of the Labour Party started to move the Party away from its roots in the Trade Union and labour rights movement, towards a ‘Washington Consensus’, neo-liberal stance, as epitomised by Tony Blair (who was drawing on the then Clinton winning experience). Labour had begun to understand that the endorsement of Wall Street and the City of London was a perquisite for any return to Office, and that in any case, the factory-based politics of the past, in this shiny, new cosmopolitan world of the urban and suburban élite, simply would not propel the movement into power.
    Labour, at that moment, wished to become a typical Euro Centre-Left party, representing middle class voters who wanted to display their decency by voting for a party that espouses some, albeit quite restricted, notion of ‘social concern’.
    But, as the preoccupations of the élite, metropolitan consciousness turned more and more ‘globalist’-espousing ‘disadvantaged’ groups, such as ethnic minorities, women, and gender non-conformists, rather than show empathy for the stresses of ordinary working men and women (whom they came to regard with contempt, as Ludite backwoodsmen and racists), so the Party’s internal gap opened wide.
    This is the opening Cummings and Johnson have espied. The new demographics they believe, require rewriting the electoral landscape. Out is the Conservative electoral coalition of the recent past, which married urban and suburban social liberals with rural small-c conservatives (a marriage which was itself a cause of an internal tension, not dissimilar to that in the Labour Party – and as witnessed by the Tory 21 ‘Remainer’ rebels who were expelled from the Party). Centrism, in short, is no longer seen as advantageous. And, in comes a working-class, socially-conservative politics targeted at non-graduates in the Midlands and the North of England – i.e. at the Sixty-percenters as a whole.
    “In this viewing, an extraordinary array of Labour seats [most of whom voted Leave] from Wrexham and Wakefield to Stoke-on-Trent Central and North could tumble into the Tory column on election night, and send Mr Johnson into Downing Street with a commanding majority”, Capurro suggests. Yes, the price may involve the loss of Conservative seats in London and the South East, but in practice the former electoral prize contested by both the main parties – the urban middle class – is itself suffering stress from globalist dynamics, as it bifurcates into the truly rich élite, and a struggling, belt-tightening Middle Class.
    The Establishment élite sees the threat: This might – in the long game – end with the enthronement of the politics of the ‘deplorables’, and the eclipse (or ‘obsolescence’ in President Putin’s terminology) of liberalism.
    Hence the bitter counter-revolution being mounted by the Establishment in the UK Parliament and the media. And hence the deep Establishment distrust of Johnson, for although he may represent the epitome of Establishment in one sense, he has always tried to position himself as the archetypical ‘outsider’.
    The Northern working-class votes are those which Johnson wants to capture most dearly. Dominic Cummings knows from the ‘Leave’ campaign, and from Trump’s successes in US states not traditionally regarded as voting ‘Red’, that a focus on the culture ‘war’ – on issues such as transgender rights and ‘political correctness’ – can mobilise today’s voters, more than traditional family party affiliations. Cummings precisely intends to lever the toxicity of globalism not just with the ‘deplorables’, but with a Middle Class increasingly fearful of slipping into the abyss.
    There are many problems to this evolving contestation of prevalent liberal millenarianism. A major problem is much more subtle, and less amenable to solution, than just the outbreak of ‘culture war’ – and it applies to all western economies: How – in this post-heavy-industry era – to maintain large-scale employment particularly for those with low (or no) skills.
    Globalism unquestionably has contributed to the off-shoring of jobs to other parts of the globe, but the reality is that many of those jobs are not coming back ‘home’. They are assimilated elsewhere. They are lost for good.
    The ‘new normal’ being touted by the US Administration is one that is not particularly concerned to re-capture, and bring home, mundane manufacturing processes. It wants for the US, the ultra high-tech end of manufacturing mainly, or only. This, it views, will represent the commanding heights of the new economics. And this view evidently is orientated more towards the objective to maintain US hegemony, than rather than for concern for the welfare of the US people. Such an economy – even if it were feasible to achieve – concentrated in the ultra high-tech, would face the issue of the 20% of Americans who then would become ‘unnecessary’ – surplus to needs, as it were. Do we really want to go there …?
    Globalisation has had a great deal to do with this, but the decline of the factory-based economy in the West lies right at the very heart of our troubled political landscape (as Trump’s appeal to the ‘deplorables’ from a stance on the Nationalist-Right, rather than the globalist Left, strongly suggests).
    Thibault Muzergues, European director of the International Republican Institute, warns that a structural divorce between the people and their representatives is in play. This happens once state institutions are viewed as a brake to preserve a status quo that is already in dispute, and in crisis. In other words, the Establishment counter action, and its rhetorical flourishes (i.e. describing the prorogation of the UK parliament as (literally) a coup d’état) in order to facilitate the crushing of the threat of ‘deplorablism’, precisely sets the ground for more bitter internal European strife.
    “Some extol the unwavering will of the British leader [Johnson] to do what is necessary (within the limits of his constitutional rights, at least as long as the British courts will not block him) to put an end to the debate on Brexit by respecting the popular will … whilst others [in juxtaposition], praise the virtue of the [Italian] President for saving parliamentary democracy – in the face of the risk of a Salvini government … [coming to power].
    “In both cases we are confronted with a conflict between direct democracy and parliamentary democracy, but this is not necessarily what is played out in the minds of actors, let alone citizens. For them, it is not so much a crisis of the institutions; but rather that of a crisis around Brexit, or in the person of Matteo Salvini.
    “The problem is that the politicians in each camp (and with them their supporters) will be able to radically change their discourse on this question of legitimacy according to their own interests …
    “This is a very dangerous game because it prepares the excessive politicization of institutions in a context of polarization of debates, and their use for partisan ends only – which undermines their legitimacy a little more. Without these institutions to manage or even settle our political conflicts, there is little that separates us from civil war or, as Hobbes described almost four centuries ago, from bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all. The slope we are currently following is therefore necessarily dangerous.”
    But in comparing Johnson to Viktor Orban —as Austrian newspaper Der Standard did, with its London correspondent writing “Johnson and his henchmen clearly think Brexit is more important than democracy and the rule of law”; with Germany’s international public broadcaster DW calling “Boris Johnson, the UK dictator,” and Yascha Mounk in France’s Le Monde newspaper writing that suspending Parliament constituted the “most flagrant attack on democracy that Britain has ever known”, there is a distinct whiff of that old Viet Nam axiom of ‘destroying a village to ‘save’ a village’ metamorphosing into one of having a constitutionally legitimate British government overturned and destroyed, in order ‘to save democracy itself’ (and to save Britain from elections which might not produce the ‘correct’ outcome’).
    If populism blighted “the most entrenched of democracies,” said an editorial in Le Monde, it “would be terrible news for the entire continent.” Well … welcome to the new Grand Inquisition: Does the prisoner (Johnson) confess before the Holy Inquisition that Parliament was suspended for heretical motives; or will he deny it, and face being burnt at the stake?

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/ne...ean-continent/

    David, I know you for years. I know you have a water problem and an #EMERGENCY-
    Do you honestly think that your contribution gave me anything but chatter?
    I have to say, sorry Dave, I did not read you clearly. Please clarify!
    The most relevant literature regarding what happened since September 11, 2001 is George Orwell's "1984".

  5. Default

    By the way, I know that nobody is currently seriously discussing anything in this thread.

    We are not even pretending.

    I did learn nothing, did anybody?

    I did not tell you anything about my view on #ASSANGE yet.

    Should we continue this discussion? Seriously.
    The most relevant literature regarding what happened since September 11, 2001 is George Orwell's "1984".

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carsten Wiethoff View Post
    Very good. one or two more things, quickly.
    This may seem to the listeners and to you, Tom Scully, like verbal Jiu-Jitsu. Someting like the google terms of services. I refrain from quoting them here, and since they often change retroactively, it would also be of no use.
    And I openly admit that I am very often frustrated from conversations, even with my best friends, because words are used that have no clearly defined meaning or bullying tactics are applied or blatant propaganda is sold as an honest opinion,or statement of fact. No medium, not even the alternatives, are free from that. Even good people, which are in the majority everywhere, even in media and government, sometimes use these unfair practices.
    Definitely some of the worst words, that serious speakers should only use as bad examples, are "conspiracy theorist", "counterfactual", "conspiracy", "conspiracy theory", "extreme left", "extreme right", "Nazi", "Antisemite", "radical" in the political sense and a couple hundreds more. These words are used in all or nearly all contemporary media, but I dare anyone, to bring up a sensible and agreeable definition for them. Instead they are all used as weapons. By good and bad people alike. Without even recognizing it.
    Tom Scully, good man, would you agree to that state of affairs, or do you have a different world view?


    I agree, especially the misuse of "Antisemite" to immunize from legitimnate criticism, the government of Israel, Israeli politicians, and the oligarchs of all countries who provide financial support to those entities. I have read reporting claiming fewer than fifty families own half the assets
    owned by all residents of Israel.

    Conspiracy, by itself, is the label assigned to an actual criminal charge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carsten Wiethoff View Post
    Hey, Tom, I may have an IQ of about 130, but I am no longer the fastest. I also work normally, when I am not sick, fulltime in an extremely demanding Software Project involving Airplanes, Robots, Realtime Software, EtherCAT busses and a million more things. I am interested in learning who actually killed John F. Kennedy, but for a long time I know that Lee Harvey Oswald did not fire a shot that day.
    To parse a footnote like yours:
    Peter Janney's uncle was Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics who enlisted law partners Roswell Gilpatric and Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice "Tex" Moore, in a trade of 16 percent of Gen. Dyn. stock in exchange for Henry Crown and his Material Service Corp. of Chicago, headed by Byfield's Sherman Hotel group's Pat Hoy. The Crown family and partner Conrad Hilton next benefitted from TFX, at the time, the most costly military contract award in the history of the world. Obama was sponsored by the Crowns and Pritzkers. So was Albert Jenner Peter Janney has preferred to write of an imaginary CIA assassination of his surrogate mother, Mary Meyer, but not a word about his Uncle Frank.
    would under good conditions take me 2-3 days, I mean to fully grasp, who all the people mentioned there are, even if I may have heard half of the names before.
    How long, Tom, do you think, the average reader needs to parse that footnote. Does the average reader exist at all? I mean, does anybody even read the footnotes?

    Trying to be helpful
    Carsten

    Late addition: I may have misquoted your footnote. It does not have anything to do with John F. Kennedy. Sorry!
    The footnote is actually a critique of "the community". "The community" of primarily non-lone-nutter JFK Assassination related topics book authors who scratch each others' backs instead of challenging the accuracy of the details published by their counter-parts. Truth seems subordinate to other, perhaps more loftier goals?

    Motive, means, and opportunity....

    https://www.sfgate.com/business/arti...on-2958771.php
    ON ECONOMICS: -- How Kennedy Assassination Affected Some Stock Prices

    JONATHAN MARSHALL
    Published 4:00 am PST, Monday, November 18, 1996

    One of the first questions any murder investigator asks is cui bono -- who benefits.In the case of the John F. Kennedy assassination, whose 33rd anniversary falls on Friday, new answers have come from a recent economic study called "Friends in High Places: The Wealth Effects of JFK's Assassination on the Assets of LBJ's Supporters."
    The study, by Claremont-McKenna College economist William Brown Jr., was published this year in Public Choice, a leading social science journal.
    Brown measured the impact of Kennedy's death on stock prices of major firms connected to Vice President Lyndon Johnson. His goal was to gauge the power of special interests -- in this case, those in Johnson's orbit -- to influence national policy for their own gain.....


    Brown the economist (and no relation to Brown and Root) found that between November 22, 1963, the day of the assassination, and November 26, the first day the stock market reopened, the value of the 63 Johnson-related firms jumped 0.85 percent more than the rest of the market.
    Firms connected with Brown and Root did even better, increasing in value an average of 1.64 percent.
    Aerospace firms saw their value rise three-quarters of a percent more than the market right after the assassination.
    And no wonder: Business Week, in its last pre-assassination issue, reported that "a major cut in defense spending is in the works." Johnson, more hawkish than Kennedy, eventually reversed that cut with a major escalation of the Vietnam War.

    Of all defense firms, perhaps none had a greater stake in the sudden transfer of power from Kennedy to Johnson than General Dynamics, whose main aircraft plant was located in Fort Worth, Texas.

    Its stock climbed from $23.75 on November 22 to $25.13 on November 26, and by February 1964 was up over $30, a jump of around 30 percent in three months.
    Shortly before the assassination, General Dynamics was the subject of a major influence peddling investigation by the Senate Government Operations Committee.....
    ....On November 22, in a separate inquiry into government corruption, another Senate committee heard testimony about an alleged $100,000 cash payoff to Vice President Johnson in connection with the TFX contract. That investigation also went nowhere after the assassination, notes Peter Dale Scott, a professor emeritus at the University of California at Berkeley, in his 1993 book "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK."Only fringe conspiracy theorists would conclude from these facts that General Dynamics, Brown and Root or the "military-industrial complex" more generally, had Kennedy killed. They may have preferred Lyndon Johnson, but there's no evidence they wanted Kennedy dead.
    But the facts speak tellingly about how accidents of history can affect great fortunes.
    A postscript for assassination buffs: No individual stood to lose more from the TFX scandal than Chicago investor Henry Crown, who owned 20 percent of General Dynamics. His personal attorney, Albert Jenner, became a senior staff attorney on the Warren Commission, in charge of investigating the possibility of a conspiracy.
    In later years, Jenner also represented Chicago labor racketeer Allen Dorfman. Dorfman's stepfather Paul, a leading figure in the Chicago mob, ran the Waste Handlers Union in Chicago in 1939 with Jack Ruby, Lee Harvey Oswald's future killer.....
    Last edited by Tom Scully; 09-17-2019 at 08:06 PM.
    Peter Janney's uncle was Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics who enlisted law partners Roswell Gilpatric and Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice "Tex" Moore, in a trade of 16 percent of Gen. Dyn. stock in exchange for Henry Crown and his Material Service Corp. of Chicago, headed by Byfield's Sherman Hotel group's Pat Hoy. The Crown family and partner Conrad Hilton next benefitted from TFX, at the time, the most costly military contract award in the history of the world. Obama was sponsored by the Crowns and Pritzkers. So was Albert Jenner Peter Janney has preferred to write of an imaginary CIA assassination of his surrogate mother, Mary Meyer, but not a word about his Uncle Frank.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Scully View Post
    Conspiracy, by itself, is the label assigned to an actual criminal charge.
    Agreed, you are allowed to use that word. In the the US and, I think, in Britain the term Conspiracy is well define and a judge can in priciple determine, if something was a conspiracy or not. In Germany that is not the case. Did you know that?
    The most relevant literature regarding what happened since September 11, 2001 is George Orwell's "1984".

  8. Default

    Tom, the rest of your input is still too much for me, I cannot follow you.
    David, what about #EMERGENCY?
    Magda, do you like to join?
    Audience: some participation, if possible, please
    The most relevant literature regarding what happened since September 11, 2001 is George Orwell's "1984".

  9. Default

    Some input about me, having not much to do with #ASSANGE:

    I cannot answer questions like "Where is the corpse of Osama bin Laden?".

    Can You?
    The most relevant literature regarding what happened since September 11, 2001 is George Orwell's "1984".

  10. Default

    Tom: Motive, means, and opportunity....
    I understand and agree, these are important points in a criminal case.
    I did not get the connection to the footnote, can you get a little bit slower, please. I just woke up from my sleep.
    The most relevant literature regarding what happened since September 11, 2001 is George Orwell's "1984".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •